Democratizing Iraq vs. Post-WWII Germany: A Comparison

Introduction: Democratization After Conflict

After World War II ended, significant efforts were made by the Allied powers to implement democracy in West Germany and Japan. The transition from authoritarianism to democracy would not be an easy task to accomplish efficiently (Katz). In time, both countries were transformed from militarist regimes with weak democratic cultures into models of democracy (Enterline and Greig). In their foreign policy analysis, Andrew J. Enterline and J. Michael Greig stated the following:

West Germany and Japan were critical to the functioning, and ultimate success, of the Western security system during the Cold War, and served as beacons of democracy, economic prosperity, and peaceful foreign relations in regions notable for authoritarian regimes, state-controlled economics, domestic turmoil, and interstate conflict.

In 2003, after entering Baghdad, a senior U.S. staff officer found himself and his division in a similar situation of turmoil. They were given no instructions or orders regarding what to do or where to go from there (Katz). The United States found itself once again in the position of democratizing a nation with no assurance of success. Several controversies arise when arguing for or against the democratization of Iraq or Afghanistan — whether it can be done and, furthermore, whether it can flourish.

Democracy as an International Norm

Over the years, and particularly after the successful implementation of democracy in West Germany, democracy has become the standard international norm. Nevertheless, it is worth asking why democracy has become the norm, and whether this norm can be applied to Middle Eastern nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. In Michael McFaul's "Democracy Promotion as a World Value," he provides three distinct reasons why democracy has developed over time to become the norm.

His first claim is that democracy "is stronger today than ever, and democracy itself is widely regarded as an ideal system of government. Democracy also has a near-universal appeal among people of every ethnic group, every religion, and every region of the world." He further argues that democracy as a foreign policy goal has become increasingly acceptable; however, the United States no longer holds full control over democracy, even though it has played a vital role in its development and growth as an accepted foreign policy. Since the U.S. is no longer recognized as holding exclusive ownership of democracy, this has been viewed as a sign that democracy is not merely an American project, but a model accepted internationally.

Finally, McFaul concludes that although democracy has become the accepted standard, that does not automatically mean it will be followed in every case. Furthermore, choosing not to follow or embrace democracy does not necessarily prove that it is not influential. Regardless of such instances, democracy remains widely accepted as the international norm.

Comparing Post-War Germany and Iraq: An Overview

In order to determine whether democratization could succeed in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, it is first important to note and scrutinize the similarities and differences between the cultural and military structures of these countries, and to place them in the context of post-World War II West Germany. First and foremost, although democratization has been successful in the past, there is no guarantee that it will succeed again, particularly in Iraq or Afghanistan. Although West Germany had an anti-democratic regime, much like Iraq and Afghanistan, what Iraq and Afghanistan do not currently possess is a "base for democratic constitutionalism" (Katz). The success of democracy is largely dependent on the social and economic conditions already present within a nation (Enterline and Greig). Further research has led scholars to conclude that the two cases of democratization — West Germany on one hand, and Iraq or Afghanistan on the other — are substantially different and arguably non-comparable.

Economic Development and Democratic Outcomes

One of the main differences between the two cases — and one that is crucial for thriving democracy — is their dissimilar levels of economic development. In her article "The Iraqi Intervention and Democracy in Comparative Historical Perspective," Eva Bellin accurately distinguishes the differences between post-war Germany and post-war Iraq or Afghanistan. Before the start of World War II, West Germany was a highly industrialized country with a developed economy, while Iraq has never reached that same level of economic development (Bellin). Although Iraq has benefited from oil revenues, it has never fully advanced into an industrialized country (Bellin). Because Germany was already developed prior to the war, it did not have to start from scratch afterward; instead, it focused on rebuilding. Iraq, by contrast, would essentially be starting from scratch.

Furthermore, Bellin invokes the widely accepted theory that "this differential level of economic development has a huge impact on democratic outcomes and that durable democracy is strongly correlated with economic development." She supports this theory by demonstrating that "statistically, it seems irrefutable that democracy is most likely to flourish and survive when a country enjoys more than $5,500 per capita GNP." Although Germany may not have met that threshold at the time, it possessed the supplies and human capital to absorb foreign aid effectively and to take advantage of rapid growth opportunities (Bellin). Iraq's lack of comparable economic foundations would inevitably slow its democratic development (Bellin).

Conclusion

Enterline and Greig point out that "the democratization of Iraq would, first and foremost, improve the political and economic well-being of Iraqi citizens." They go on to conclude that:

A democratic Iraq would pursue peace abroad, eliminating a major antagonist in the Middle East and setting the stage for the settlement of conflicts long plaguing the region. Finally, American policy makers argued that a democratic Iraq would stimulate further democratization and greater economic prosperity in the Middle East, a region characterized historically by authoritarian governments and widespread poverty — conditions reinforcing chronic political instability and conflict.

On the other hand, Bellin has effectively identified five viable structural differences between post-war Germany and Iraq, which together suggest that the democratization of Iraq or Afghanistan may not be as favorable as proponents hope. The gaps in economic development, ethnic cohesion, institutional capacity, historical democratic experience, and committed national leadership each present formidable obstacles. While the normative case for democracy remains compelling, the comparative evidence cautions against assuming that what succeeded in Germany can be replicated wholesale in the very different conditions of Iraq or Afghanistan.

References

Bellin, Eva. "The Iraqi Intervention and Democracy in Comparative Historical Perspective." Political Science Quarterly 119.4 (2004–2005): 595–608. The Political Science Quarterly. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.

Enterline, Andrew J., and J. Michael Greig. "Against All Odds? The History of Imposed Democracy and the Future of Iraq and Afghanistan." Foreign Policy Analysis 4 (2008): 321–347. Wiley Online. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.

Katz, Stanley N. "Gun Barrel Democracy? Democratic Constitutionalism Following Military Occupation: Reflections on the U.S. Experience in Japan, Germany, and Afghanistan and Iraq." Princeton Law & Public Affairs Paper No. 04-010. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.

McFaul, Michael. "Democracy Promotion as a World Value." The Washington Quarterly 28.1 (2004): 147–163. Project Muse. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.