Democracy is Overrated

Sir Ignatius has done some great work on the breakdown of “Isms” and I love what I read. My only concern is that we expect too much from democracy. When the former satellite states hold elections, is that the end of the flow chart? For the past decade we’ve seen a one way transformation from Communist regimes to democratic ones, but nothing guarantees the stability of elected governments. Nor do I buy the democratic peace theory that some seem to believe hook, line, and sinker. Not surprisingly, I tend to agree with Robert D. Kaplan:

In the fourth century A.D. Christianity’s conquest of Europe and the Mediterranean world gave rise to the belief that a peaceful era was at hand now that a consensus had formed around an ideology that stressed the sanctity of the individual. But Christianity was not static. It kept evolving, into rites, sects, and heresies that were in turn influenced by the geography and cultures of the places where it took root. Meanwhile, the church founded by Saint Peter became a ritualistic and hierarchical organization guilty of long periods of violence and bigotry. This is to say nothing of the evils perpetrated by the Orthodox churches in the East. Christianity made the world not more peaceful or, in practice, more moral but only more complex. Democracy, which is now overtaking the world as Christianity once did, may do the same.

Was Democracy Just A Moment? December 1997

Think democracy in the Middle East will bring peace and prosperity? I beg to differ, as does Georgetown Professor Daniel Byman in the latest issue of the Atlantic Monthly (not available online, curse them!). Byman takes a tough look at future elected governments in the Greater Middle East, and to summarize three of his six hypotheticals:

IRAN:
A fully democratic Iran would be multiethnic, moderately religious, and no friend of extremist Sunni governments to its east and west. Nonetheless, Iran would seek to be a dominant player in the region and oppose US influence in the region. Conspiratorial nationalism would remain strong. And they’d still want nukes.

SYRIA:
Democracy in Syria would be lead to two polarized groups, Islamists and secular nationalists, united only in their hostility to the United States and the old regime. The new government would continue to facilitate terrorism against Israel. The economy would remain stagnant. Conflict between Shia, Sunni, Alawi, Kurdish, and other ethnic and religious groups might boil over into civil war.

SAUDI ARABIA:
Elections in Saudi Arabia would bring terrifyingly puritanical Sunni extremists to power. Think Saudi support for terrorism is bad now? Try a democratic Whabbi regime. Such a government would bitterly oppose the Shia governments in Iraq and Iran, would at best coexist, not cooperate, with the United States, and delight in exerting their influence on global oil prices. Only in retrospect will many in the US realize that the Saudi monarchy was a modernizing force—and miss them.

(Good stuff—check out the article for more on a democratic Egypt, Palestine, and Lebanon.)

The point? We should welcome the collapse of dictatorships and totalitarian regimes. Just don’t forget that Hitler, Milosevic, Mugabe, and Chavez all came to power through legitimate elections.

On a personal note: I board a plane for Japan in five short hours. Posting will resume when I either 1.) get to an internet cafe, or 2.) pirate some unprotected wireless in my new apartment. Avast ye Tokyo denizens, prepare for your modems to be boarded!