A few points building on my earlier post on this subject:
1. Does my claim imply that we are worse off for having occupied Afghanistan and Iraq?
I think not. Despite very serious flaws (and major errors by the Bush Administration), the new Afghan and Iraqi governments are greatly superior to the predecessors - both from the standpoint of US interests and from that of their own people. Being better than the Taliban and Saddam Hussein is not a high standard to shoot for, but it is still an important achievement. However, failing to pay adequate attention to promoting liberal values as well as promoting democracy is likely to both reduce the extent of our success and imperil its longterm viability.
2. Is liberalism harder to promote than electoral democracy?
Many commenters, and some scholars, such as Fareed Zakaria, claim that it is. I am not so sure that this is universally true. Unlike electoral democracy (which usually takes years to provide any real benefits to the population), individual rights provide immediate and tangible benefits to a large number of people. The most dramatic recent examples are Afghani women who can now work outside the home, attend schools, and not wear burkhas. But there are many smaller, but still significant examples, such as the fact that 62% of Iraqis now have cell phones, which were forbidden under Saddam Hussein. Such benefits can be used to strengthen public support for individual freedom. Obviously, radical Islamists will resist efforts to promote individual rights, but they are not exactly big on democracy either. I am not suggesting that promoting individual rights will always be easier than promoting democracy. But there is no reason to believe that the reverse is true, or anything close to it.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Promoting Democracy and Individual Rights III: The German Experience:
- Promoting Democracy vs. Promoting Human Rights II:
- Promoting Democracy vs. Promoting Human Rights:
That is, I suggest basic economic freedoms are far more important to ordinary folks than either democracy or the right to flaunt the majority's moral mythology. There are historical examples of cases where people have in fact arguably acted as if they valued more (and would fight harder for) economic freedom than democracy or moral freedom, e.g. Lenin's forced retreat from the true socialist economy via the NEP, and the resiliency of the Chinese Communist government after it liberalized China in the economic sphere alone twenty years ago.
From that point of view, one of the best ways to stabilize either Afghanistan or Iraq is simply to encourage widespread entrepreneurship and enforce maximum respect for property rights. It's a million small-business owners who are not cool with either having their front window broken in riots, or government imposing 4 PM curfews and searching potential customers randomly in the street, who are the best basic bulwark against both anarchy and oppression. Girls not wearing burkhas is nice, I'm sure, but plenty of societies have gotten along fine despite weird dress codes (like having to powder your hair white before you go out, or having to not wear pants or short skirt if you're a woman).
With all due respect, that analysis is a bit thin.
62% of Iraqis have cell phones!
Really, what more needs to be said?
Well, George, democracy in Iraq shouldn't work like it does in the US, with certain people picking out the leaders. It's supposed to be that when people vote, that vote is respected.
Bush, after having gotten Iraq on the road to democracy, has decided he doesn't like the outcomes afterall. So why the charade?
It's Spring Break, and I've been catching up on the Equal Protection reading that I should have done earlier in the semester, but didn't. Less than 50 years ago, people were closing their schools, parks, and pools rather than integrating them. People who supported these policies are still alive and voting! It doesn't make you feel good about America, or human nature in general.