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_republic
The 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
5 comments:
AN EXCELLENT ESSAY! Virgil Xenophon here,
(blogger has my account screwed up.) An essay ALMOST as good as the one on this subject that I have been formulating in my glorious mind but have never got around to publishing. (cough)
I don't know what you are still doing in "student" status at age 27, (at that age I had finished my tour in the USAF and was back in graduate school myself) but as a retired PhD in Poli-Sci as well as a broken down geezer ex-fighter pilot, you should treasure these moments of reflective life that allow you time to think and organize such thoughts..... Once the demands and realities of a "real" job (if only in academia) and, say, a wife and children intrude, you will find that one has time for only fleeting mental fragments of thought about all too many subjects which appeal and that warrant deeper attention. As the saying goes, "Life is what happens to you while you are planning something else."
At any rate, always enjoy reading/hearing what you have to say. As to answers to the problems you posed? I'm afraid those I would recommend would involve the matter of reincarnation and certain gentlemen named Genghis and Attila--gentlemen who would perform under MY directions, of course. But then we may get there via "progressive" politics and democratic governments anyway.
Ever read much of the philosopher Eric Voegelin? In tracing the development of Gnosticism and the politics of those believing themselves to be in possession of "The Word," or ultimate truth, from the time of Christ up unto the present day, he eventually concludes that in their zeal to enact their superior exclusive knowledge (what Thomas Sowell has termed "The Vision of the Anointed") these people become modern-day bureaucratic mini-versions of Robespierre. Kafka's bureaucrats/politicians, only with heated zealotry rather than studied cynical indifference. I have myself said many times over that it is not for nothing that the instrument of Robespierre's passions was named "The Committee on Public Safety." What could be more noble than caring for the safety of the people in all it's glorious forms? An old saying goes: "Scratch a Russian and you'll find a Tartar." I have modified it to read: "Scratch a 'Progressive' and you'll find a Robespierre-in-waiting." Voegelin concludes: "The end result of 'progressive' politics is totalitarianism."
Happy days indeed.
Cheers
Howdy Virgil
I did a stint in the real world as a MIG Welder, Reprographics Engineer and Bar Manager(I was only good, very good at the latter). Went back when I was 25 and starting my PhD next year
One point, Voegelin (whom I have heard but yet to read) is wrong, The end result of progressive or 'regressive ' politics is not intrinsically totalitarian. There is a dangerous tendency in all political schema towards totalising ends. Francoism was by no measure progressive, indeed it revalled in its anti-status, yet it would kill hundreds of thousands. It is a fine line and one that has been difficult to discern at points but it remains a universal danger
"""Once the demands and realities of a "real" job (if only in academia) and, say, a wife and children intrude"""
when you get to this point, I strongly advise you not to buy a dish washing machine, and then offer to do the dishes everyday. it is a great moment to let your mind flow and reflect on whatever may come to your mind.
now, the post:
the points you mention are the ones that make me sceptical about this kind of projects too.
I think the UN is worth keeping, bad as it is, because everybody is there (except Kosova, but hopefully one day they too will be there).
democracies promote democracy in a efficient way by joining at an informal level. if a group of states as promoting as a common interest, the fact that there are no formal mechanisms biding them is much better.
sometimes a show of unity is necessary, but just look at the EU, which is a mini-league of democracies, without whose member-states any league of democracies would be empty: look of how its member-states are unable to show a strong commitment to the defense of georgia.
even the criticism that georgia is not democratic enough: has it been more strongly supported, that would have meant that the mature democracies who supported is could in return have pushed for deeper democratization..
but no, not even in the case of the independence of Kosova it has been possible to have a common position, just the minimum necessary, but not a strong commitment.j
'offer to do the dishes everyday' - now that, my friend, is good wisdom!
As is your comments...
Democracies promote democracy via example rather than bayonet!
My apologies, I'm madly drunk....
"""Democracies promote democracy via example rather than bayonet!"""
example and also some cash getting in... to support the democrats (no irony, that's how things work)!
the problem here is that too many times the democracies who can afford to use money to support democracies abroad bet on the wrong horses.
the drive for democratization must come from the inside, but without support from the outside it's hardly possible for that drive to be successful, unless it happens that the non-democratic regime falls for itself, but that is so rare... and nowadays most non-democratic regimes are sofisticated enough to adopt some formal features of democracies, and that makes it even more unlikely that they may fall for forthemselves without a 'helping hand' from the outside...
all of it must be done discretely, of course, it cannot be an obvious direct foreign help, otherwise it discredits those on the inside who are pushing for democratization as 'foreign agents' aka 'traitors'.
so, it's not only a matter of principles, it is also a matter of wht is the best strategy and what are the best tactics to promote democracy?
the tactical level fascinates me.
Post a Comment