Elections and Democracy

Yes it's true, elections alone don't make a democracy. So why does western policy often seem myopically focused on elections? I used to wonder about this until I heard a wise man (but I can't quite remember who, I think he worked at Carnegie, though) explain that the international community tends to overemphasize this point because that's what we know how to do. If a government sincerely wants to run a free and fair election, we can help make that happen. We can give political parties advice about how to organize. We can monitor elections and have a pretty good system for assessing them. When it comes to elections, we know what we're doing.

The rest . . . well, we know that the rest is very important. The rule of law, in particular, is crucial. But while have have a lot of knowledge about, say, the rule of law we don't have much know-how about instilling it elsewhere. So you see a lot of emphasis on elections.

Comments

Thomas Carothers is a great source for explaining why our foreign policy on democracy promotion is so bad. He might be who you read.

Posted by Tim | February 3, 2008 4:53 PM

Maybe. Or maybe the people running foreign policy for Western governments don't especially care about democracy, but use elections as a smokescreen to distract those who do.

Posted by ML | February 3, 2008 4:54 PM

We can monitor elections and have a pretty good system for assessing them.

Yep. Elections are considered to be the key goal of democracy promotion for the same reason people get obsessed about testing in education reform circles -- it gives you something quantitative to work with, so people can pretend like they actually have measurable results.

If my stereotypes about consultants are correct, expect even more of this nonsense of Romney gets elected. That being said, I still would prefer Pres. Romney to Pres. McCain whom I would prefer to many other possible GOoPers.

Um ... let's hope the Dems. win come Nov. ...

Posted by DAS | February 3, 2008 5:10 PM

Interesting. I can see how hard it would be to promote "the rule of law." It's really an expectations game. People have to assume that

a) most people are obeying these laws and
b) if I don't I will probably be stopped.

Hard to make people believe that in a situation where a and b have been demonstrably untrue.

Posted by Ted | February 3, 2008 5:18 PM

Yeah, so, ok: elections don't equal democracy, and democracy isn't the same thing as equality, and equality doesn't equal freedom. What's your point? Democracy requires collective decision-making. Elections are a quite effective, yet basic tool for allowing large groups of people to participate in a decision-making process. For many societies making the transition to democracy, the concept of the vote is quite radical. For others, they may already have a tradition of elections, but those elections are so poorly run and corrupted, that no one has any confidence in them, and they effectively operate as propaganda tools.

Bottom-line: there may be more to driving a car than turning the steering wheel, but if you're steering wheel is broken, or non-existent, you pretty much have zero ability to drive a car at all. So, in this metaphor, fixing the steering wheel becomes a quite important practical necessity.

Posted by dry_fish | February 3, 2008 5:30 PM

Dry_fish
By the same analogy:
Driving while blind (like democracy without rule of law, protection of minority rights, real political competition, etc.) is also not a good idea, working steering wheel or not. The real issue is how can we promote more than just elections?

Posted by Tim | February 3, 2008 5:36 PM

A precondition of democracy and the rule of law is that only a minority of the population violates the law. This in turn requires the collective action of millions of people; their actions are shaped by culture and their expectations. If they only experience corruption, that is what they will expect, and they will (rationally) act accordingly. It's unreasonable to expect democracy to work effectively in China, Russia, the Middle East, or most of Africa and Asia where systematic corruption is the cultural norm.

Posted by Billy | February 3, 2008 5:42 PM

Last year, I spent some time in Guatemala City and had a chance to visit the US Embassy there. When I pressed the foreign service worker about "Promoting Democracy," one of the embassy's stated priorities in Guatemala, he clarified that democracy promotion entails "promoting CAFTA." So it seems that "democracy promotion," kind of like the "war on terror" is a fluid concept, and a "trust us, we're doing something good" kind of thing that thereby generally evades effective scrutiny.

I agree that in the absence of human rights, civil rights, a strong and full civil society, rule of law, and freedom of dissent, the push for elections is unbelievably shortsighted.

Posted by Jocie Fong | February 3, 2008 5:46 PM

Admitting that promoting elections is a futile exercise would then force policymakers to face the black void of their own irrelevance. Also it would close down their ability to control expensive efforts to promote democracy, and to later secure lucrative positions in the private companies that get hired to carry out the efforts.

Posted by jimBOB | February 3, 2008 5:59 PM

The rule of law, in particular, is crucial. But while have have a lot of knowledge about, say, the rule of law we don't have much know-how about instilling it elsewhere.

Where do you come up with this stuff Matt? Just because you haven't heard about something or it flies under the media radar screen, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

One our most successful examples of what you say we don't know how to do took place in ex-Communist Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. You know, all those countries that went from repressive Communist dictatorships to democratic members of the European Union in less than 20 years? Here's an excerpt from a State Dept Dispatch from 1991, hiighlighting State Dept programs in democracy building in Eastern Europe:

Some of the highlights and goals:

Focus on Central and Eastern Europe

US Assistance In Central and Eastern Europe

The United States instituted its program to support the transition to democracy and market economies in Central and Eastern Europe in 1989...

In program terms, US assistance supports three main objectives:

* Development of the institutions and practices of democratic, pluralistic societies based on Western values of human rights and individual freedoms;...

Programs

I. Support for Democracy and Pluralism

A. Support for free political process:

* Election monitoring - the 1991 focus is on Bulgaria, Romania, and Yugoslavia at the local, regional, and national levels.

* Training and material support for democratic political organizations, including labor unions.

* Local government reform and public administration.

* National legislatures: training and assistance in establishing information/ research systems.

* Citizen networks: help in establishing non-partisan civic groups to open participation in the political process.

B. Rule of law:

* Help in drafting constitutions and laws.

* Help in establishing an independent judiciary.

C. Social process/cultural pluralism:

* Educational reform.

* Civic education/ethnic issues.

* Books: provision of Western texts in political science, economics, etc.; translation programs; development of publishing capability.

* English teaching: basic, comprehensive programs to increase English-language capability. The US Information Agency (USIA) has long had an English-teaching program in the area and will manage an expanded program. Peace Corps volunteers are teaching English in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland and soon will be in Bulgaria.

* USIA carries out a full range of educational and cultural-exchange programs throughout the region.

D. Independent media:

* Establishment of independent broadcasting entities through the International Media Fund.

* Journalism training.

In addition to base programs of individual agencies, including USIA and the Peace Corps, in FY 1991 approximately $35 million in special assistance is being committed to these programs. During FY 1990, similar programs received approximately $12 million in special-assistance funding.

**************

This all turned out to be very successful. Don't say we don't know how to do this unless you know what you're talking about.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | February 3, 2008 6:26 PM

Aside from problems with instilling respect the rule of law in a population, the "rule of law" has a way of interfering with the ability of the powers-that-be to do whatever the hell they want to. And, yes, George W Bush, I'm lookin' at you.

Posted by idlemind | February 3, 2008 6:37 PM

Aside from problems with instilling respect for the rule of law in a population, the "rule of law" has a way of interfering with the ability of the powers-that-be to do whatever the hell they want to. And, yes, George W Bush, I'm lookin' at you.

Posted by idlemind | February 3, 2008 6:37 PM

Re Matthew's comment "I used to wonder about this until I heard a wise man (but I can't quite remember who, I think he worked at Carnegie, though) explain that the international community tends to overemphasize this point because that's what we know how to do. If a government sincerely wants to run a free and fair election, we can help make that happen "
-------------
ha ha ha ha ha. You had be going there for a moment --until I caught the joke.

We promote elections because Karl Rove and the CIA can't fix them if no one has them.

Our elites have found that "democracy" is an efficient way of managing herds of animals. It gives the rabble the illusion that government is just -- while ensuring that every politician has to whore himself out to 6 different rich factions in order to even run.

It keeps the herd in a stupor -- the illusion that they live in "freedom" -- while their sons die to seize oil deposits for Exxon and their Social Security/Medicare savings are stolen to pay for global empire.

It ensures that the lies of the superrich are disseminated widely -- that the herd is constantly hypnotized by a constant play of delusions -- while the truth is always buried.

Because anyone pointing out the truth might as well go into a forest and shout at the trees. If
someone manages to actually get a hearing , his reputation will be instantly destroyed by a blizzard of lies (see Howard Dean's famous scream) from the tightly owned news media. TV anchors don't become millionaires by telling the truth -- quite the contary, in fact.

But paying a few guys like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly etc is a lot cheaper than paying for a secret police. And less dangerous.

Having developed such a perfect system here in the USA, why should our elites not EXPORT it -- to establish a global empire. Instead of having to fight wars to overthrow disobediant foreign leaders, one can simply send a shitload of money to his rivals.

Look at what we did to the Prime Minister of Australia when he merely questioned our spy satellite ground station at Alice Springs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

A few years ago, we had French Leader Chirac and German leader Schroeder questioning our domination. Today, we have docile partners
Sardozy and Angela Merkel. Do you think that is an accident??

Politics is the continuation of war by other means.

Posted by Don Williams | February 3, 2008 6:54 PM

"We" are fond of elections, and not the other stuff, because the relevant "we" consists mostly of people who were... elected. And the other stuff consists mostly of the chains we put on them to keep them from being elected dictators.

And who wants to admit that the thing that made their nation great was that they couldn't do what they wanted?

Posted by Brett Bellmore | February 3, 2008 7:47 PM

Yes, it's really pretty simple. In our modern, media-centric society, he who controls the main organs of the mass media controls the elections and hence the political system.

It's hardly coincidental that the first action taken by virtually any Third World coup leader is to seize control of the radio and television stations.

I'll have to admit that until the last few years, I'd never dreamed just how totally gullible and malleable America's citizenry were, and how easily they could be persuaded that up was down and black was white and Osama's last name was Hussein.

I feel tremendously guilty about all those years I used to snicker at the total nonsense so widely believed by the gullible populace of old USSR...

Posted by RKU | February 3, 2008 8:22 PM

that's what we know how to do. If a government sincerely wants to run a free and fair election, we can help make that happen. We can give political parties advice about how to organize. We can monitor elections and have a pretty good system for assessing them. When it comes to elections, we know what we're doing.

Err, what?! Apparently everybody has forgotten the 2000 elections which has made the US the laughingstock of the Western world. You know, back when Putin asked if he could be of any assistance...

Posted by novakant | February 3, 2008 8:44 PM

What idlemind said. Promoting the rule of law would require constraining the US government and corporations (because the whole point of the rule of law is that it applies to everyone), as well as governmental and private actors in the host country that the US deals with. So the rule of law gets sacrificed in favor of whatever the particular short-term goals are.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 3, 2008 8:47 PM

Re RKU's comment "how easily they could be persuaded that up was down "
----------
1) Yes. Democracy has a real meaning -- a system of government in which the people of a country debate and vote on laws and measures to be taken. Possible in peacetime in small groups.

But our nation of 300 Million people --totally ruled by only 551 men -- is not a democracy. Especially when those men who have to spend close to $1 Billion per election merely to compete for power.

2) And a democracy is only one form of government. Like any form, it can degenerate into tyranny -- in which the most basic human rights are denied to a minority. Democracy does not require the Bill of Rights.

In roughly 7000 years of history, the vast majority of people have lived under a monarchy of one form or another. Because usually the Rule of One is most powerful at resisting outside aggression. Which is why our elites --bent on global empire -- so not like it unless it is totally subservient to them.

3) It has also been argued that a benevolent monarch -- who has no need to steal from the peasants because he has more than enough --can be more protective and benevolent for his people than a deeply corrupt and predatory oligarchy.
Such a monarch can, in fact, protect his people from a vicious aristocracy and external threats.

4) My point is not to advocate monarchies -- as we've seen with the Bushes, the man of virtue is often succeeded by a deeply flawed, contemptible son.

Rather, I make the point that there is NO perfect form of government -- it is a choice that each nation much make for itself. The mixture between power and responsibility -- between demands and rewards.

5) When people say that they intend to go on the other side of the world and impose "democracy" by force of arms, they are lying.

Because this imperialist mindset -- that someone in Washington DC is qualified to rule people whose language he does not speak and of whose culture he is ignorant-- contradicts the most basic idea of "democracy".

Especially when those same politicans have never shown any interest in preaching the joys of democracy to the corrupt kleptocracies of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan.

6) Our Founders were not perfect -- but they had "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind".

They also noted:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

7) The People of a nation determine their form of government -- not a vicious predator from 12,000 miles away.

Posted by Don Williams | February 3, 2008 9:07 PM

Maybe. Or maybe the people running foreign policy for Western governments don't especially care about democracy, but use elections as a smokescreen to distract those who do.

Take the word "foreign" out of this statement, and I agree with you 100%

Posted by justinb | February 3, 2008 9:50 PM

Obvious - it's easier to rig an election than a whole system of laws and culture. We try to do the latter, too, but it's just easier to concentrate on rigging elections.

Most of the so-called "Color Democracy" elections in other countries over the last few years were seriously manipulated by the US intelligence services and outside US agencies.

"It's unreasonable to expect democracy to work effectively in China, Russia, the Middle East, or most of Africa and Asia where systematic corruption is the cultural norm."

The same is true in the US. Anybody who thinks democracy works "effectively" here is conflating voting in the US with:

1) A strong economy which is based on the US position in the world vis-a-vis land area, natural resources, history and judicious subverting of the rest of the world.

2) A (more or less) effective law enforcement apparatus - the result of 1).

3) A powerful military - also based on 1)

Meanwhile, corruption is clearly rampant in the US state and corporate cultures. It's simply concealed better here, plus the population has been educated to believe it doesn't exist. In most countries, that's hard to do because the corruption is more obvious.

It's the difference between the old Soviet system and Gorbachev. Gorbachev was Russia's first "smart Communist". He realized that the Western way of bullshitting the population into thinking they are well off is better than the old Asian way of domination.

This is really the only difference between the West and the Third World. It's based on the simple fact that when you have most of the money, you can afford to conceal your corruption. In the Third World, survival is a little more on the line, so the corruption and the domination has to be more obvious. It's just the circumstances.

As General Zod has said, "I demand your very lives, but I am not such an imbecile as to institutionalize suffering and poverty." Also, he has said, "...my administration mostly seeks to accelerate the expanse of economic power by the few and mighty at the expense of the downtrodden, which is really no different than previous administrations." :-)

In any event, it's all relative. A lot of people would consider Switzerland a FAR more effective democracy than the US, both in terms of providing for its citizens, staying out of wars, and state governance in general. I suspect any poll taken anywhere in the world would put Switzerland ahead of the US in terms of which is the better nation in many areas of interest.

Bottom line: The US is corrupt - just not quite as obviously corrupt as some other states. OTOH, its corruption has more negative effects on the rest of the world than many other more obviously corrupt states.

Saddam had less impact on the world than the US, despite being more obviously corrupt. Bush has had FAR more negative impact on the world than Saddam, and it is arguable which of them was more corrupt - not which was more obviously corrupt.

Don is right - there is no perfect government. Not even anarchism can work, as I used to believe. Nothing can work indefinitely as long as humans are human.

Fortunately, by the end of this century, that will no longer be the case.

Zod notwithstanding...Oh, great, now he'll have my head...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 3, 2008 9:55 PM

A precondition of democracy and the rule of law is that only a minority of the population violates the law. This in turn requires the collective action of millions of people; their actions are shaped by culture and their expectations. If they only experience corruption, that is what they will expect, and they will (rationally) act accordingly. It's unreasonable to expect democracy to work effectively in China, Russia, the Middle East, or most of Africa and Asia where systematic corruption is the cultural norm.
Posted by Billy

Agree, good post. "Rule of Law" is an empty phrase if it means those laws formed in corruption that the Ruling Elite thrives in. Or a judicial aristocracy out of tune with The People but not oligarchies they are beholden to - wish to shove down their throats.

Many a totalitarian nation lauded "Rule of Law" formulated by Central Soviets and Nazi Party Member legislators and judges as the highest duty. While resistors, from American revolutionaries to Gandhi to MLK to Palestinians to your basic gang of revolutionart thugs with AK-47s, reject submission to "rule of law".

Once the People see the "democracy" game is rigged, as it was in post-Communist Russia by the billionaire Jewish oligarchs and others that had bribed the Yeltsin people, or in mock Nigerian "democracy elections" - they reject democracy and go with a strong authoritarian leader out of logical self-interest.

I depart a little from Bill in thinking Asians are capable of Democracy, have proved it repeatedly, and China, Burma, Vietnam, even N Korea may go democratic in the next 50 years. And Indonesia may consolidate their gains.

The ruin of Russia promise by corrupt capitalists may yet yield to a more careful socialist democracy in coming years.

I don't think black majority rule nations or hardcore Fundie Muslim ones will see much democracy until their peoples and cultures evolve considerably further out of savagery or the developmental dead end that is strict church-state combined Islamic sects.

Posted by chris ford | February 3, 2008 10:11 PM

It's republican democracy

Today's cringing liberals do not make a distinction between a parliamentary democracy -- which probably has a monarch -- and a republican democracy, which does not.

Having made that simple, and obvious mistake, they go on utterly ignore military institutions, in particular, the fundamental unity of universal suffrage and a national military obligation, probably including secular/patriotic professions.

What we have is, basically, clerical democracy where a lawyers and celebrities, professional or self-styled "advocates" for citizens, have now reduced citizens to clients or audiences.

They (a) have contracted for a long-term hire "Victorian" military and "Edwardian" navy, (b) have built up a police-bailiff state with a huge incarceration rate, (c) have confined political participation to a heirarchy of "donors", and (d) have suppressed core civic institutions in which persons other than lawyers have equal "vote and voice" -- national politica conventions, for instance.

It's "A World Turned Upside Down", as anyone from an exotic plane of reference would notice. I rather like this annual, snarky, Wilhelmine post by Bill LIND. I don't share his or Paul Weyrich's biases, but he does see right through the sham of, for instance, the Democratic Party and its coalition partners in the Other Party of Various Names -- Whigs, mostly.

Posted by John Robert BEHRMAN | February 3, 2008 11:45 PM

In my opinion, every soldier who's served in Iraq is entitled to go and spit on the steps of the White House.

3000 years ago, Achilles asked what loyalty does one owe to an incompetent, selfish, ungrateful ruler who wastes his mens' lives for the sake of ego (i.e, the 10 year Trojan War triggered by the seduction of Helen):
------------
"Neither do I think the son of Atreus, Agamemnom, will persuade me,
nor the rest of Danaans, since there was no gratitude given
for fighting incessantly forever against your enemies.

Fate is the same for the man who holds back, the same if he fights hard.
We are all held in a single honour, the brave with the weaklings.
A man dies still if he has done nothing, as one who has done much.

Nothing is won for me, now that my heart has gone through its afflictions
in forever setting my life on the hazard of battle

For as to her unwinged young ones the mother bird brings back
morsels, whereever she can find them, but as for herself it is suffering,

such was I , as I lay through all the many nights unsleeping,
such as I wore through the bloody days of the fighting,
striving with warriors for the sake of these men's women "

--Iliad, Book Nine

Posted by Don Williams | February 3, 2008 11:48 PM

D Williams - In my opinion, every soldier who's served in Iraq is entitled to go and spit on the steps of the White House.

In other's opinion, every soldier who's served in Iraq is entitled to go and spit on the steps of the NY Times, Moulitsa's offices, Obama's offices, Reid and Pelosi's offices.

Posted by chris ford | February 4, 2008 3:20 AM

"Yes it's true, elections alone don't make a democracy. So why does western policy often seem myopically focused on elections?"

Probably because western policy doesn't want real democracy. See, you keep making the mistake of assuming that western policy means well. It's the typical liberal misconception that the system is broken when in fact it's doing exactly what it was designed to do.

Western policy wants a spectator democracy that leaves essential power in the hands of neoliberal elites, but without all the muss and fuss of old-fashioned dictatorships and death squads.

The whole point is to focus entirely on formal electoral mechanisms, while leaving the real structures of power (e.g. the military and landed elites in El Salvador) untouched. Spectator democracy is a strategy for preserving those structures of power by innoculating the country against the threat of real democracy. A real democracy might pull something like a land reform. But one of those nifty color-coded revolutions just gets everybody feeling warm and fuzzy for a while, and then they get back to the serious "civil society" business of bowling leagues and ice cream socials, while the men in suits a half-inch to the left or right of center get busy taking orders from the World Bank and IMF.

A case in point is the regime set up by Bremer in Iraq. Naomi Klein did a pretty good job of describing the CPA's shenanigans. It "privatized" state assets to crony capitalists in an orgy of looting. It rubber-stamped neoliberal agreements like the GATT "intellectual property" [sic] accords. And best of all (from their perspective) it railroaded through a provisional constitution that couldn't be overturned after Iraqi sovereignty without a virtually unobtainable supermajority.

Fuck all those ink-stained fingers. Just matrix reality.

Posted by Kevin Carson | February 4, 2008 3:34 AM

P.S. I second Tim's recommendation of Carothers. Also "Baghdad in the Year Zero" by Naomi Klein (Google it).

Posted by Kevin Carson | February 4, 2008 3:45 AM