The Barrel of the Gun, How Not to Promote Democracy

For all practical purposes, internal affairs in most, in not all, countries have ceased to be purely domestic affairs. Whether we like it or not, one of the consequences of globalization has been the erosion of national sovereignty. In economic matters national boundaries have long ceased to exist.

Also regarding political matters the traditional notion of sovereignty has been eroded. Today, domestic political developments in one state have ceased to be the exclusive domain of that state. The international community, and the big political powers that play a leading role in it, take an active interest in what is happening in other parts of the world. Also in political terms, today's world has become interdependent, and interventions have become the rule and are not the exception.

This dramatic process is driven also by the proliferation of the international media, foremost the global television channels and, more recently, the Internet. Within seconds, political developments in one part of the world are known in all other parts of the globe.

In more than one cases, television pictures of gruesome events have forced governments to (re)act -- and intervene. These days, we can witness the impact of TV on foreign policy evolving in the case of Sudan. Were it not for the images on CNN, BBC and other media, the public pressure on the governments to intervene and stop the killings would hardly exist.

While the proliferation of globalization is one major universal trend of our times, the spread of democracy on a global level is another epoch-making development. In recent decades, we could witness an unparalleled increase in democratic governance in all major parts of the word. According to Freedom House, a U.S.-institute that has monitored the evolution of political and civil liberties on a global level for over thirty years, "the highest-ever proportion of the world's population is living in freedom today".

The proliferation of democracy has many causes -- some related to domestic, others to international developments. From a liberal angle, the intrinsic human nature and the desire to live a life in freedom may be termed the main driving forces behind the quest for democracy throughout the world. Further factors propelling democracy have been the apparent failures of authoritarianism in many countries and the liberating effects of modern information technologies on the mind of millions of people throughout the world.

Apart from these local determinants, the international environment by and large has also been supportive. Democratic governance has become an international benchmark no government wants to ignore.

Even notorious dictatorships such as North Korea or Myanmar pertain that they are democracies, although there exists a general consensus that so called people's democracies ruled by one -- mostly communist -- monolithic party or the military do not meet the standards of what is generally considered a democracy.

In today's world, the promotion of democracy has become a part of international relations. Most industrialized countries have elaborate programs of promoting democratic governance beyond their own borders.

By so doing, they inevitably interfere in the political affairs of a foreign land. For more than one reason, this raises serious issues. I have been actively involved in democracy assistance programs in many parts of the world for over ten years.

In my eyes, international democracy promotion is justifiable only as long as it is conducted in close cooperation and upon explicit invitation of relevant political forces of the host society. Also, it must be limited to legitimate methods and respect the laws of the host country.

A radically new situation has evolved after the governments of leading Western nations have turned to military means with the declared aim of promoting "democratic values". This so called "liberal imperialism" has its origin in the late nineties of the last century with the bombing of Serbia. It has reached a high point with the ongoing military occupation of Iraq.

According to the supporters of the military strategy, the ultimate political objective of the war is the democratization of the greater Middle East. For me as a liberal, bonding the words "liberal" and "imperialism" is an unbearable provocation: Liberalism always aims at the increase of freedom, while imperialism stands for the exact opposite: Domination by a foreign power.

I could mention numerous tactical and fundamental arguments why I believe today's Anglo-American "liberal imperialism" in the Middle East is misguided -- and will fail to reach its stated objectives.

While, yes, the democratic community of nations (or whatever is left of it following Bush's unilateral behavior) cannot sit by idly when gross human rights violations are happening, the selectiveness in the application of the imperial doctrine has discredited it even before it was implemented.

While U.S. soldiers are killing (and dying) in Iraq for the promotion of democracy, their government has turned a blind eye on -- and is even propping up -- other tyrannies not far away.

It is a fallacy that a democratic society can be established by decree or with guns and canons. Democratization of undemocratic societies is a highly complex social, political and cultural process which may take years, even decades depending on the specific conditions.

For democracy to blossom, certain elements are indispensable. Among these are pluralism, the evolution of an educated middle class, the emancipation of women, the independence of the judiciary and the presence of independent media.

In other words, the modernization of society is a prerequisite for democratization. Therefore, if foreign governments truly wish to promote democracy in foreign lands (and not their own imperial ambitions) they should first focus their efforts on modernizing said societies.

Otherwise, if they continue to force their proclaimed democratic principles on the people with the barrel of the gun, they might be up for an unpleasant surprise. If given the chance to express themselves in free elections, the people might end up electing the likes of Osama bin Laden and other terrorists into government.