By
Benny YP Siahaan[1]
In recent decades we have seen that there have been skeptical views
on democracy which among others saying that democracy is not a remedy for the “imperfect”
political systems and aggressive countries.
While it is true that democracy is not a cure, it is still the best
options available for countries since the desire for freedom is universal for
no one in this world wants to live in oppression.
However, in the past decades we have seen a distorted and misleading
view on democracy. Like human rights,
democracy has become a word that almost lost its true meaning. The word of democracy has become a buzzword in
last decades both in policy-maker and civil society
circles over the past decades up to the present. Even leader of an un-democratic
country, in his speech, has to put one or two words regarding democracy or
human rights. Thus, many are worry that this overuse may have caused democracy
become a cliché and lose its real meaning.
Furthermore, it seems there is a trend to simplify democracy as simple
as holding a free election in order to be labeled as a democratic country. Although it is true that free election is one
of the salient features of democracy, however it is superficial. The most
important one whether that country has another substantial features of
democracy such as the presence of a strong and vibrant civil society, good
governance, and free press.
Thus, there is nothing wrong with democracy as a concept. In fact, it
is an ideal and sound concept as long as we implement it right. Nonetheless,
when it is linked to foreign policy and attempted to be exported to
“un-democratic” countries then the problem arises.
The reason for exporting democracy possibly started when Winston Churchill
said that democracies would not go to war against another democracy. However,
it should remembered that when he said that it was only for rhetorical
purposes. Nonetheless, the words quoted worldwide and were swallowed as if it
is a substantiated theory. It implies the un-aggressive nature of democracy
thus there would be a world peace if democracy be promoted throughout the
world. Subsequently, this preconceived “theory” has sparked Western countries
to “export” their democracy up to the present.
However, as Nathan Sharansky and Ron Dermer aptly wrote in their
best selling book The Case for Democracy
(2004) that the question is not whether those countries have the power to
change the world with democratic system but whether they have a will to do
that. Indeed, what lies at the root of the problem is the lack of a genuine
commitment of those countries.
Indeed, in many cases countries that seemingly promoting democracy, in
fact, do not have a genuine intention to promote democracy. Perhaps this is
because the so-called realism perspective in world politics still prevails.
For example, in the Middle East we
have seen that promotion of democracy has become a pretext or a veil to cover
the real intention of countries to advance its own personal interest such as
energy or mineral resources. In addition, democracy has become prerequisites
for channeling foreign aid of developed countries. If you are not democratic,
it would affect your aid.
Furthermore, like the cases of the Philippines
and Indonesia Indonesia
and the Philippines
The truth is, as was said above, they become democratic because
freedom is a universal need. Another example to be pondered is whether the
communist system fell because of the western bloc efforts. I doubt it. My own
belief is that the communist bloc fell because of its self-inflicted problems,
not by the design of the Western bloc. It is because the people in those
countries wanted to be free from the failed and oppressive communist regimes.
At present, the countries of these may point Iraq Iraq
Indeed, in the late 1990s and prior to 9/11 incident, democracy has
already seeped into Middle East , the least
democratic region considered by Western countries. Of course, we can not
compare it with Western standard. For example, some Gulf states
Democracy will not going to happen overnight, particularly by just
pushing a quick and free election. Since the desire for freedom is something
universal, we have to be patient for soon or later the day will come. A
peaceful transition to democracy needs a gradual process. If we are impatient, then
the Iraq
Furthermore, recent happenings in Iraq ,
in Iran and in Palestine
Another fallacy regarding foreign policy and democracy is the
tendency to link democracy with terrorism and Islam in the war against
terrorism. Robert Pape in his recent book “The Logic of Suicide Terrorism”
(2005) said that the presumed nexus
between terrorism and Islam fundamentalism is misleading and might be
encouraging to worsen the US domestic and foreign policy and to harm Muslim
needlessly. From his comprehensive data, he found that there is little
connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism or any world’s
religions. Despite its mammoth damage, Pape argued that 9/11 incident was not
unique and independent phenomenon. In fact, the leading prime mover of suicide
terrorism is Tamil Tiger in Sri
Lanka
However, following the 9/11 incident the responses to terrorism have
been policies to “conquer” and “democratized” Muslim countries particularly in
the Middle East . In this regard, the best
description for the current “democratization” efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan
In this regard the lessons learned from this is that there is
nothing wrong with democracy or promoting democracy around the world as long it
is with genuine commitment and with gradual manner. It is nice to export
democracy, but the thing is, (since the need for freedom is universal)
democracy will find its way anyway.
------
[1] The writer is an
alumnus of Tsukuba University in Japan
No comments:
Post a Comment