Israeli politician Natan Sharansky spent years in the Soviet gulag for the “crime” of fighting for his people’s right to emigrate from the Workers’ Paradise, so he is uniquely well placed to teach us about the blessings of freedom and democracy. The Case for Democracy, written with Ron Dermer, convincingly argues that freedom can take root in places it has yet to grow, and that the United States, which for decades has relied on the “stability” of seemingly friendly dictators to protect its interests, should use its power and influence to promote the spread of democracy - not just because it’s the right thing to do (though it is), but also because it is in America’s best interests in the long term. (“The democracy that hates you is less dangerous than the dictator who loves you,” writes Sharansky.) With Americans arguing about what should be done with Iraq in the face of a determined insurgency, The Case for Democracy couldn’t be any more timely.
Sharansky argues that nations can be divided into two categories: free societies, in which the people may express their views and opinions without fear of arrest or punishment by the state, and and “fear societies”, in which the people are denied this fundamental freedom. Citizens of free societies are also given the right to elect their leaders, of course, but Sharansky says elections alone are not enough: a free press, an independent judiciary, and the rule of law must be firmly in place before genuinely free elections can be held. (The recent Iraqi elections have been absolutely magnificent to behold, but one wonders whether the elements of a free society are ready, and therefore whether the polling has been held too soon.) The rulers of fear societies, on the other hand, exist only for the purpose of remaining in power indefinitely, and to that end they need to crack down on all forms of dissent and popular expression, and to make popular anger remains firmly fixed on real or imagined external enemies. (That’s why the leaders of Syria, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia, fear societies all, need the “Zionist entity” as a safety valve for their citizens’ wrath.)
Article comments
1 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
When you talk to Russian Jews who live here, who know Mr. Sharansky, you do not get such a positive image of the man. I will not go into too many details - I cannot afford to fight a libel suit. Let us just say that he is not as highly regarded by those who have known him for a while, as by those who barely know him at all.
2 - Bliffle
An interesting theory and one that deserves to be discussed. I look forward to seeing what dicussions follow.
3 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
'Tisn't a theory, Bliffle. I'm unusually closemouthed because of libel issues that could pop up. There are lots of Jewish lawyers because Jews like to use them lots.
4 - Dave Nalle
Let us just say that he is not as highly regarded by those who have known him for a while, as by those who barely know him at all.
Given that this is a book review, all that really matters is what he believes in print. Whether he pays his grocery bill or gives drivers the finger isn't terribly relevant to his publicly expressed political theories.
Dave
5 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Dave, I used to watch carefully his latest political party, Yisraél b'Aliyá. I got a good stiff dose of the theories he espoused in the bnok - they are essentially the same ones he espoused as head of Yisraél b'Aliyá.
In the 2003 parliamentary elections my wife and I split our vote. I voted for the National Union Party, a small right wing party against ceding more land to Arabs. My wife voted for Yisraél b'Aliyá, seeing as Sharansky appeared to be reaching out to English speaking immigrants like us.
Yisraél b'Aliyá had been a Russian immigrants' party previously.
Apparently, he had not done a decent job of bringing home the uh "bacon" for his Russian voting base, because they ditched him and voted Likud or National Union. Left with only two mandates in the 2003 Knesset, Sharansky ditched us English speakers and joined the Likud where he thought the action was.
The long and the short of it is that Sharansky is full of shit. He uses people and dumps them. His political ideas are as sound as he is.