Democracy concepts and applications

Democracy

We live in a world that is constantly changing in a process of development and evolution that affects all walks of life and all regions of the world. In the context of the political scene in today's globalised world, the issue of democracy and the notions defined by this term has become one of the most stringent subjects for discussion in the world political forums. In the beginning of the 1990s Francis Fukuyama's proclamation of the end of history and the reconsideration of world politics on the basis of democratic rule was of resounding impact (Nye, 2005). However, it was afterwards considered to be a hasty determination of the evolution of world politics in the decades following the end of the Cold War. Although the author pointed out the victory of democracy in the world and the defeat of the totalitarian rule and dictatorial regimes, the terms used to suggest such an idea demanded more insight and definition.

Taking into account this perspective, the question thus arises: can we consider democracy to actually be the end of history and of the evolution of state rule? Is democracy the best and only means available to politicians and heads of state to use in order to manage the future of their countries and to drive forward the evolutionary process which is destined to peoples? If so, what role should be attributed to those states in which the traditional notion of democracy cannot be applied? Are they against the general trend of the evolution process? Can they be brought on the right path and can democracy actually be imposed to regimes such as the ones existing in Rwanda, Sudan, and other failed states? These are all questions which demand a response not necessarily from a theoretical point-of-view, but rather from the perspective offered by the practical examples such states generously offer the international community to consider.

In order to try to have a clear view on possible answers to such questions, it is important to first consider the actual meaning of democracy as pointed out by the political entities making up the civilized world. Traditionally speaking the term of democracy is of western descent. The British consideration of the notion is based on 19th century visions over the share of political power among the institutions of the state (Dunleavy and O'Leary, 1987). The monarchic rule considered to be authoritarian in its relationship with its subjects was deemed a limited power in relation to the institutions it created along the history of the state.

The American view of democracy however was the one that would eventually prevail and would stand at the basis of the democratic system as it is today. The American Revolution, one of the few internal struggles of the young nation targeted precisely this establishment of the British democratic system. Its aim was to create a state power that would include the entire array of political and democratic forces that made up the society. In this sense, the term of good governance and power of the people became intrinsic values of the system the U.S. tried to promote in the centuries following its constitution. At this moment in or history, these are the pillars of the notion of democracy as promoted throughout the world. They represent the emanation of a historical tradition of social responsibility, political accountability, and most importantly, respect for human and civil rights.

In the framework provided by these ideas, the situation existing in states such as Iraq, Somalia, African nations appears to have an immense gap to fill. According to the standards imposed by political superiors such as the U.S. Or the European Union, countries of the Middle East of from the African continent are light years away from achieving a democratic considering of the political life. However, at the same time, "every country is undemocratic in its own way" (Ottaway et al., 2005); therefore a good place to start any analysis would be to limit the comparison between democratic and undemocratic countries to elements which could be defined in broader terms rather than particularities of the system set as reference point.

From the perspective offered by the historical background of nation states, of war torn countries, it can be said that the idea of democracy as promoted by the United States is rather hard to achieve. It is not necessarily a matter of a lack of options for implementation, but rather a misinterpretation of the particular elements which define each nation as an individual actor on the international scene. The issue of applying democracy in failed states or in forth world countries is relevant to point out this argument.

First and foremost, a democratic system implies, according to western precepts, a stable political environment based on the rule of law and the respect for human integrity and civil rights. Although it appears to be the perfect definition and description of an ideal state of affairs, this is rather hard to achieve in any country, let alone one that has gone through consecutive violent tragedies as it is the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo for instance in 1992. In this particular case, "the collapse of central state authority" represented a crucial element in the destabilization of the country and of any democratic initiative it may have had (Goldstone and Ulfelder, 2004). From this point-of-view, it is impossible to consider the establishment of a stable rule of law, as the primary condition for a truly democratic system in the conditions in which there are no possible pillars to support a political and administrative system of any kind.

A similar example is the situation in Iraq which can be used to portrait this state of affairs. Following the end of the war against the authoritarian rule of Saddam Hussein, there was a certain power vacuum the beginners of the attack fail to consider to its true size and magnitude. In the aftermath of the war, a great number of vices spoke against the rightfulness of the international intervention in Iraq, not so much from the perspective of the initial stated goal subscribed to the war against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, but rather from the perspective offered by the eventuality of an actual stable regime in Bagdad. In this sense, "there is a civil war in progress in Iraq, one comparable in important respects to other civil wars that have occurred in postcolonial states with weak political institutions. Those cases suggest that the Bush administration's political objective in Iraq -- creating a stable, peaceful, somewhat democratic regime that can survive the departure of U.S. troops -- is unrealistic" (Fearon, 2007). This incompatibility of aims and outcomes results from the inability to adapt the notion of democracy as understood by western powers to the actual specificities of the region and of the country at hand.

Yet another important aspect in exporting democracy around the world in failed states is the issue of nation building. In war torn countries or in regions that have been constantly subjected to economic degradation, isolation from all international trade routes and of the benefic effects of a global market, the existence of a demos, of a community based on common cultural, spiritual, economic, and social values is essential. Such a reality would offer a stable popular background and basis for any attempt to consider a future democratic system of rule. However, historical experiences have proven that building the nation and rebuilding the national identity of a country is often disregarded. For instance, the most recent case of the Iraqi nation is relevant in this sense. The lack of a security environment but most importantly the existence of an internal security threat created by the tensions between various forces inside the Iraqi society largely contributed to the perpetuation of a continuous state of war. In such conditions, the democratization attempts, feeble as they were, were destined to fail. A better approach should have taken into account the creation of a safe environment not necessarily for the political rule, but for the people in the first instance. Thus, "the coalition should have deployed vastly more military police and other troops trained for urban patrols, crowd control, civil reconstruction, and peace maintenance and enforcement. Tens of thousands of soldiers with sophisticated monitoring equipment should have been posted along the borders with Syria and Iran to intercept the flows of foreign terrorists, Iranian intelligence agents, money, and weapons" (Diamond, 2004).

The case of Somalia's attempt to implement democracy is also worthy of consideration. After the war, there was no clear direction of action that would have supported any strive for democracy. There lacked a visionary approach of the situation and the U.S. led initiative eventually failed. "The United States and the United Nations stumbled into Somalia without a plan. As a result, what began as a humanitarian mission (...) became a misguided attempt at ad hoc nation building (...) the United States extricated itself from that quagmire by leaving Somalia to its fate in 1994, and the United Nations later did the same" (Ottaway, 2002). With this approach in mind, it is impossible to consider a viable implementation of Western democracy in the conditions in which there are few, if any, common points to relate moral values and norms to.

Despite this current inability of Western countries to export democracy, there are certain underlying factors that could be taken into account in future attempts. Failure notwithstanding, it is clear that the future of the world lies in an international society that will eventually refuse war as means of conducting politics. Having this in mind, it can be said that there is no singular factor which determines the failure of establishing a democratic system in countries such as Iraq or African nations. There is more the issue of a mix of factors which determine a negative result.

On the one hand, there are cultural differences between western countries and the rest. Taking the Muslim world as an example, it can be pointed out the fact that the different perceptions of what human rights for instance means to Westerners and Muslims weight heavily in the attempt to stabilize the situation on the ground. More precisely, for Muslims the notion of justice represents the one preached by the Quran, whereas the Westerners completely reject the mingling of religion and state (Lewis, 2005). Similarly, the Muslim world, especially the rule of Saudi Arabia, does consider they have established a democratic rule, according to their own principles which state, for example, consultations with various institutions. However, they do not take into account the same points of reference as the Westerners, but rather the religious authorities (Lewis, 2005). In this sense, it can be said that a certain balance of power does exist and a control over the central authority is exercised. Still, these essential democratic elements are not compatible with the Western values and norms concerning democracy.

On the other hand, there is an economic factor to be taken into account when discussing the success or failure of the export of democracy in developing nations. Westerners often consider the rule of law as being in connection with the economic possibilities of the state. This idea may come out of the consideration that democracies do not fight each other because, in the end, they would lose the prosperity offered by the time of peace (Rummel, 1999). Accordingly, there has been the wide spread approach of considering or at least engaging failing states in the process of globalization as a means of reducing the poverty and increasing the capabilities and opportunities a better standard of life can offer citizens. They in turn would foster the democratic precepts and include them in their system of moral values. However, globalization is a two folded affair. It can help capitalist countries because the entire process is based on the capitalist market framework but it can ruin emerging economies or sensitive economic initiatives. Most African countries have been subject to the latter type of treatment. Former Zaire, in an attempt to become one of the most important diamond producers in the world, accepted to increase its diamond resources in cooperation with Western countries. However, while the exploitation of these resources was becoming an ever increasing source of profit, this economic practice also led to the increase in the financing of rebels from around the country (Collier, 2003). These "blood diamonds" thus became an enemy to the possible stability of the country, despite the fact that their exploitation was the result of an incentive given by a globalised world. Therefore, it can be said that there is also a lack of compatibility between different economic practices and the actual situations on the ground.