The principle of government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’ is an admirable aspiration, but that’s as far as it goes. Not all ‘the people,’ even in the most developed nations, are politically aware and in many countries around the world there exists poverty and illiteracy. Secondly, democracy disintegrates when ‘the people’ turn to violence. Thirdly, the imposition of democracy on countries that are, in essence, tribal or sectarian, is akin to planting roses on stone.
The West’s enforced democratisation efforts have been spectacular failures because they failed to take into account cultural norms and sectarian divides—or, most importantly, that democracy must be planted as a seed that needs watering before it takes root over time.
Nobody loves a dictator, especially one that plunders his nation’s coffers and uses brutal tactics to maintain civil order. That said let’s be realistic. Look around! Toppling authoritarian leaders has been cause for celebration in the Middle East over recent years, but can we honestly conclude that today those countries are better off? It may be an unpalatable truth but authoritarianism equates to security and stability, which in turn facilitates economic progress. Joblessness, inflation and shortages of essentials are together a recipe for prolonged civil unrest.
Take Iraq, for example, where voters proudly display purple-tipped fingers. However, Shiites will vote for Shiites and Sunnis for Sunnis. Given there is a Shiite majority, for the foreseeable future Iraq will be a Shiite-ruled country under the sway of Iran. As the BBC reports, “Sectarian violence in Iraq is at some of its highest levels for years—and there is evidence the country is becoming a battleground for regional players in a wider struggle for supremacy.” And can we call a country like Afghanistan where large pockets are ruled by warlords or Taliban insurgents, a country that’s occupied by foreign forces, ripe for democracy, other than in name only?
The semi-unhinged Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi may have met his maker, but once peaceful and prosperous Libya has descended into the Arab world’s answer to the Wild West; it’s dangerous and ungovernable, a place where armed militias of various religious and political stripes are vying for control and which serves as a magnet for foreign terrorists. Its government was arguably well-meaning, but toothless. Khalifa Haftar, a retired general with former links to the CIA, has now stepped in to save the day. His anti-Islamist militia alliance has shut down parliament and is calling upon the Supreme Judicial Council to form a crisis government. “Libya has become a state sponsor of terrorism. Libya’s wealth has been stolen. This is a travesty,” he told reporters. He has effectively launched ‘a coup,’ a dirty word in Western capitals. Nevertheless, ordinary citizens craving normality are rallying behind him.
Then there’s Egypt where a presidential election is underway, the second in two years. The January 25, 2011, revolutionary youth unseated president Hosni Mubarak to attain democracy and freedom. Instead, they got an Islamist government led by a cult-like organisation out to retain power for 500 years. The US and its European allies were askance at the military’s undemocratic intervention. Egypt was duly punished in terms of suspension of aid but the majority of Egyptians were relieved at the opportunity to press a reset button and it’s more than likely that the former army chief, Abdul Fattah Al Sissi, a hero in many eyes, will sweep to victory when votes are counted. Western newspaper pundits scream the country is regressing; democracy has been quashed in favour of a military state. Few can comprehend that most Egyptians hold their army in high regard as a force that has always had their backs. This would certainly have a better understanding of Egyptian sentiments in this regard.
There was no shock, horror among the Thai population at large at the military coup that seeks to end the stalemate between pro and anti-government demonstrators and prevent further violence which has taken its toll on the economy. Why? Because Thais are used to such coups; there have been 19 during the past 82 years. They know the crackdown is temporary, and trust that the army will create a climate for elections. Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha said the takeover was required “for society to love and be at peace again.” Coups in Thailand may be run-of-the-mill but the US has reacted swiftly condemning the coup and suspending aid to the military.
Contrast the US stance vis-a-vis Egypt and Thailand with its blessing the ousting of a democratically-elected president in Kiev at the behest of an unrepresentative pro-EU crowd. That was people power at its finest; that was rule by the people.
My point is that democracy is not some kind of Holy Grail to be emulated by all and sundry. When it works, fine! When it does not, its failure should be acknowledged and accepted by the West. Placing democracy stickers on countries without democratic institutions or democratic values or where circumstances don’t permit, is nothing more than fancy attire.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
RSS
Enforced democracy takes a beating
Posted on May 28, 2014 by Linda S. Heard
The principle of government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’ is an admirable aspiration, but that’s as far as it goes. Not all ‘the people,’ even in the most developed nations, are politically aware and in many countries around the world there exists poverty and illiteracy. Secondly, democracy disintegrates when ‘the people’ turn to violence. Thirdly, the imposition of democracy on countries that are, in essence, tribal or sectarian, is akin to planting roses on stone.
The West’s enforced democratisation efforts have been spectacular failures because they failed to take into account cultural norms and sectarian divides—or, most importantly, that democracy must be planted as a seed that needs watering before it takes root over time.
Nobody loves a dictator, especially one that plunders his nation’s coffers and uses brutal tactics to maintain civil order. That said let’s be realistic. Look around! Toppling authoritarian leaders has been cause for celebration in the Middle East over recent years, but can we honestly conclude that today those countries are better off? It may be an unpalatable truth but authoritarianism equates to security and stability, which in turn facilitates economic progress. Joblessness, inflation and shortages of essentials are together a recipe for prolonged civil unrest.
Take Iraq, for example, where voters proudly display purple-tipped fingers. However, Shiites will vote for Shiites and Sunnis for Sunnis. Given there is a Shiite majority, for the foreseeable future Iraq will be a Shiite-ruled country under the sway of Iran. As the BBC reports, “Sectarian violence in Iraq is at some of its highest levels for years—and there is evidence the country is becoming a battleground for regional players in a wider struggle for supremacy.” And can we call a country like Afghanistan where large pockets are ruled by warlords or Taliban insurgents, a country that’s occupied by foreign forces, ripe for democracy, other than in name only?
The semi-unhinged Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi may have met his maker, but once peaceful and prosperous Libya has descended into the Arab world’s answer to the Wild West; it’s dangerous and ungovernable, a place where armed militias of various religious and political stripes are vying for control and which serves as a magnet for foreign terrorists. Its government was arguably well-meaning, but toothless. Khalifa Haftar, a retired general with former links to the CIA, has now stepped in to save the day. His anti-Islamist militia alliance has shut down parliament and is calling upon the Supreme Judicial Council to form a crisis government. “Libya has become a state sponsor of terrorism. Libya’s wealth has been stolen. This is a travesty,” he told reporters. He has effectively launched ‘a coup,’ a dirty word in Western capitals. Nevertheless, ordinary citizens craving normality are rallying behind him.
Then there’s Egypt where a presidential election is underway, the second in two years. The January 25, 2011, revolutionary youth unseated president Hosni Mubarak to attain democracy and freedom. Instead, they got an Islamist government led by a cult-like organisation out to retain power for 500 years. The US and its European allies were askance at the military’s undemocratic intervention. Egypt was duly punished in terms of suspension of aid but the majority of Egyptians were relieved at the opportunity to press a reset button and it’s more than likely that the former army chief, Abdul Fattah Al Sissi, a hero in many eyes, will sweep to victory when votes are counted. Western newspaper pundits scream the country is regressing; democracy has been quashed in favour of a military state. Few can comprehend that most Egyptians hold their army in high regard as a force that has always had their backs. This would certainly have a better understanding of Egyptian sentiments in this regard.
There was no shock, horror among the Thai population at large at the military coup that seeks to end the stalemate between pro and anti-government demonstrators and prevent further violence which has taken its toll on the economy. Why? Because Thais are used to such coups; there have been 19 during the past 82 years. They know the crackdown is temporary, and trust that the army will create a climate for elections. Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha said the takeover was required “for society to love and be at peace again.” Coups in Thailand may be run-of-the-mill but the US has reacted swiftly condemning the coup and suspending aid to the military.
Contrast the US stance vis-a-vis Egypt and Thailand with its blessing the ousting of a democratically-elected president in Kiev at the behest of an unrepresentative pro-EU crowd. That was people power at its finest; that was rule by the people.
My point is that democracy is not some kind of Holy Grail to be emulated by all and sundry. When it works, fine! When it does not, its failure should be acknowledged and accepted by the West. Placing democracy stickers on countries without democratic institutions or democratic values or where circumstances don’t permit, is nothing more than fancy attire.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.