Two Sundays ago on CBC Radio, Michael Enright interviewed Natan Sharansky. The Israeli Cabinet Minister was in town promoting the new book he co-wrote, The Case for Democracy. The book's thesis is that the world is divided into "the free world" and "the fear world". In the free world--essentially, Western democracies--people select their leaders, are free to complain about them without fear of reprisal, and have a say in their own lives.
In "the fear world--totalitarian dictatorships--people live under the thumb of dictators, have no control, cannot speak out, and are subject to random and existential intrusions by the state. The problem is that the free world wants to keep the fear world and all its messiness at arm's length, and has been willing to compromise with and make allowances for the worst kind of despots if it means maintaining order.
But in Sharasky's mind this is literally a deal with the devil. Keeping tyrants in power may keep immediate chaos at bay, but it consigns generations of people to lifetimes of misery. Moreover, it prevents democracy from taking hold, the only sure way to prevent the fear world from being a threat to the free world and our way of life.
Sharansky knows all about the fear world. As a Jewish refusenik in Russia, he railed against the Communist regime and was thrown into prison, where he remained for many years. He watched for years as Western democracies propped up the Soviet regimes. Making nicey-nicey with them only seemed to embolden them and solidify their grip on power. It was only when Ronald Reagan had the baytzim to tell Gorvachev to "tear down this wall" that the fundamental cracks in the edifice were exposed, and the system finally imploded.
Sharansky wants to use this to be our modus operendi with the fear world. No more kowtowing to despots; no more propping them up in the name of stability. What's needed is a through-going committment to freedom, and to bringing democracy and its fruits to those--including the Palestinians--currently living in fear.
Article comments
1 - Rich
We impose Democracy by force for three reasons: (1) because we think it's good for them, (2) because they harm us or (3) because it's good for us.
Scaramouche's analysis suggests the book rather conventionally advances reasons (1) and (2), and is understandably reticent in the matter of reason (3).
And yet (1), while a satisfactory sentiment to hold privately, is an unsatisfactory premise upon which to interfere forcibly in the sovereign affairs of others.
(2) seems reasonable, as long as we don't look too hard for reasons why they might seek to harm us beyond the IQ-challenged cry of "because they HATE OUR FREEDOM!"
And avoiding having to look beyond those convenient - and wrong - explanations is why we never discuss (3). We never discuss the fact that the reason we spread "Democracy" by force is because it is through its elements - capitalism, the rule of law, the weakening of the forces of social regulation, etc. - that we prosper. Does anyone doubt which factor the shareholders of Union Carbide's Bhopal facility valued more - a Democratic Indian Government, or access to a cheap, disposable workforce?
I value freedom, the rule of law and capitalism - but then, my ancestors were Greek. I can imagine that if my ancestors were Persian or Chinese, I might hold a different set of values with equal certainty.
To seek to overturn those values just because I prefer mine or - worse - because I can profit from doing so is immoral. And if it is possible to hold mutually incomprehensible sets of value with equal certainty, we shouldn't be surprised if our attempts to overturn them are met with the same resistance as we would mount if they tried to overturn ours.
We have no right to do (1) or (3). They do (2) because of (3).
Case not proven.
2 - Eric Olsen
very interesting scaramouche, thanks and welcome!
Rich, I don't buy the cultural incomatibility argument at all. I think there ARE certain human universals and having a proportionate say in one's own governance is one of them. Also, your argument that democracy elsewhere is to our benefit doesn't mention the fact that widespread democracy isn't just to our benefit, but to the world's benefit. Democracies typically don't fight each other, in addition to the moral/political justifications.
Also, take into account that Sharansky is criticizing us for appeasing and accomodating authoritarians who happen to serve our perceived purposes - we are being held to account here, as we should be.
3 - Rich
Eric
That's fascinating, and so do I. The question at issue is: what do we do when the other fellow doesn't? What do we do when the other fellow says "I think there ARE certain human universals and having women wear a veil is one of them."?According to Scharansky, we classify such an individual a "tyrant" who needs "democracy bringing to them".
I'm not inviting you to make a value judgement about veils: I'm inviting you to differentiate between your certainty on the matter and the other fellow's.
4 - Eric Olsen
the problem there is extrapolating a religious dictate into the political arena, which is just as wrong for Muslims as it is for Christians. Ifa freedom is taken away purely on religious grounds, it is politically illegitimate by impinging upon the rights of those within that political sphere who don't share the religious conviction.
Lack of separation of church and state is a fundamental problem within the Islamic world
5 - Rich
The Muslim doesn't have a problem with extrapolating a religious dictate into the political arena. Or with impinging on the rights of those without religious conviction. Or with the overlap between the Church and State.
Those things sound like the sort of stuff us Greek-descended boys worry about. (In fact, some of those sound like things only Washington-descended boys think about).
Again - what convinces you that your certainty over e.g. the separation between Church and State carries more authority than his? All I hear you doing at the moment is stating your preferences.