In Norman Geras' Blog, there is a regular feature, the profile that appears most Fridays. In it, various bloggers answer questions about themselves and their blogs. One of the regular questions is
'What would you do with the UN?'. A godly percentage of answers evolve around either reforming it into, or replacing it with a League of Democracies. Indeed the idea of a revived LOD (it has a long heritage) has moved from the blogosphere into mainstream politics with John McCain's endorsement and reported support from Obama's advisers. In response, defenders of the UN has come forth, declaring the project unworkable, a front for western Imperialism and a new and dangerous proto-entente that would threaten 'stability'.
I am quite taken by the idea but alas the practicalities seem overwhelming. Setting aside national sovereignty, which is worthy of a whole career spent on it...
1# The definition of a Democracy
How do we define a democratic nation, is it the forms of governance or the political culture or the government of the moment? My minimum definition of a functioning democracy; a freely elected legislative assembly, elected local government, an accountable executive, a independent judiciary, equality before the law, constitutional safeguards against state power and the defence of individuals' liberties (conscience, assembly, speech et al) and a free press is a web of subjective terms. Terms like
freely elected, accountable, independent, liberties and
a free press are still contested terms within well established democracies, they are an ongoing conversation about the nature of the demos. To construct a democratic minimum for the purposes of international matters is ossify an ongoing examination of these principles. Those on the libertarian right might suggest that the Scandinavian Social Democracies are merely a softer variety of statist authoritarianism and as such, cease to be meaningful democracies. Lest us not wander onto the subjet of Israel (defo a democracy). There is, of course, a popular long running and fallacious account of the US as a faux democracy. Yet for the institution to have moral and political legitimacy, these contradictions need answers and a common discourse. Can that arise?
Aside from trying to compare the electoral laws of various nations or to define weather what makes up a free press, the issue of the nature of the current governing party or parties arises. The Lega Nord or the FN or Vlaams Belang or the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs/Bündnis Zukunft Österreich are, to put it politely, agnostic to the claims of the demos over the ethnos yet they have gained political power at both local and national levels within democratic systems. Similarly Chavez's increasingly Caudrillist activities have sought to cement his personal power via a democratic mandate and within charitably 'democratic' norms. Again, Hamas' election victory in the PA assembly was 'free and fair' but the acolytes of the MB are constitutionally committed to destroy democracy. If a LOD member were to elect a party with a anti-democratic program which sought to enact illiberal measures via a democratic framework, would this popular bonapartism or dictatorship of the majority see them expelled? What forum would decide this?
In sum, how one defines not only the 'steady state' of democracy but the eddies and flows of party politics and the arising of anti-democratic Krakens 'in our midst's' remains a paralysing issue if one is serious about removing hypocrisy (one of the main charges against the UN) from supra-national cooperation.
2# What would be the mission of the LOD?
If the LOD became a reality, what goals should we set it. Its it the defence of democracy or the vigorous promotion. Is it to strengthen the 'internal' democratic workings of member nations, promoting 'good practice'. Would it have a judicial role in dealing with supra-national crime or crimes against humanity?
If we consider the external role, we again see contradictions. Spreading democracy is a virtue, it is the highest form of political organisation in my opinion, both morally and in function. Yet how to bring about that change within a democratic ethos is so circumstantial as to defy codification in the tomes of international law. The liberation of Iraq has brought about a democracy but one that has been ravaged by ethnic violence. Can Iraq rebuild a civic society after these scars? In the act of intervention, is such damage intrinsic? The famous comment by Robespierre about liberty on the end of Bayonets must raise the divide between assisting democracy and asserting it. Indeed an alliance of liberty was formed in the high of the first revolutionary war, between France and the series of new republics that sprung up under the cannons of 'Les Blues'. This league mixed a certain degree of French altruism and liberal solidarity with real politik, a need for money and men and a chauvinistic creed of spreading liberty's blessings to 'beyond the pale'
Consider this list of phantom republics, set up in the name of freedom -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_client_republicThe cynicism and the imported nature of change caused this little galaxy of liberty to fold once French arms were defeated. This admittedly extreme case merely highlights how contentious the export/nurturing of democracy can be.
As for the internal mission of a LOD, how would nation states react to such an infringement of their sovereignty. I would consider the abolition of the death penalty would be a fine role for the LOD to play but doubt that it would be 'welcomed' by the US. Indeed, I would oppose a campaign via supra-national levels to restrict state broadcasting given my illogical weakness for the BBC, despite there being a case that it is a undemocratic and regressively funded institution. British operations in Northern Ireland could hardly be rated as a fine example of democratic governance and policy, yet the issue of separatism and minority rights is very marshy ground in all societies. Can democracies really take criticism from their 'fraternal' societies without reverting to nationalist and particularist pique? An activist LOD might soon find itself in the same situation as its unlamented predecessor, via a surplus of integrity rather than a deficit.
3# The relationship between a LOD and non-democracies
Until democracies cover the earth (ho ho, har har), there will always be non-democratic governments as well as those who 'fail' the test of LOD membership on technicalities or during periods of upheaval. Do we 'engage' with them like with the fossilied gangster sate of China or play out great game politik with the Russian bear (defo not a democracy....) or keep them at arms length as with Iran or just forget about critical engagement as with Saudi Arabia? In an inter-dependant world, do we seek to make the LOD area 'self-sufficient' so trade can be used a diplomatic tools? Or must we rely on force or the threat thereof?
If we seek to end human rights abuses and mass brutality in Darfur and Zimbawme for instance, without making China cease its vital economic support, what is there we can do beyond 'the use of bayonets'. If we are true to a high moral conception of democracy, will we end up pariahs via this exclusiveness rather than those who deserve it?
As per with me very few answers, but many questions
