Conservatism has always had a healthy leeriness about Democracy. Understanding human nature, we knew how easily it could turn into mob rule if not chained down by constitutional protections -- the tyranny of 51% can be just as cruel as that of one man, after all. HOW one went about getting just and equitable governance was a lot less important to us than the having of it.
Conservatives point (rightly), to the poverty, corruption and hopelessness of the Middle East as a key factor in the growth of terrorism. But some now view democracy as a silver bullet for our foreign policy worries. Is it really though?
South Africa is celebrating its tenth year of multi-racial democracy. Far from turning SA into a land of peace and opportunity, "freedom" has turned it into the murder, robbery, rape, and AIDS capitol of the world. Given the ANC's Communist background, their rule has been wiser than their old rhetoric. Sadly though, the failure of post-Apartheid SA is a good reminder of the limits of Western-installed democracy.
Iraq and Iran are both good candidates for more democratic government. They both have large groups of secular, educated people. They've seen the results of both nationalist autocracy and mullahcracy. Both have large oil reserves, and neither has the crippling debt and poverty that hinder democratization in many countries. We should try to foster more open systems in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq and Iran. It will help reduce the impetus to terror, to a degree. But we need to keep realistic goals in mind.
Democracy is no more a panacea for the Middle East than it was for revolutionary France or Weimar Germany.
Posted by Discoshaman at avril 29, 2004 02:34 AM | TrackBack
The South African story is a tiny little bit more complex than that, Mr. Bush ...
Posted by: Gideon Strauss at mai 2, 2004 12:47 AMIt is rather interesting, though, that stable, democratically-representative governments appears in world history where strong Christian cultures have been established first?
At least, those are the ones that stick in my mind. Still, it must be added--democracy is not a cure-all. It is a possible cure.
Posted by: steve h at mai 2, 2004 06:09 AMGideon STrauss-
I'm aware of that. We can discuss the particulars if you like. But my general point is a sound one -- Democracy has been no panacea in South Africa.
Posted by: Discoshaman at mai 2, 2004 10:50 PMsteve h-
I agree. . . I was just teaching on the Reformed View of Government in youth yesterday. Corruption is rampant here, hatred of their president near-universal, and Freedom House is considering downgrading their assessment to "partly-free country." So it was an interesting, if touchy, topic for discussion.
We talked last week about the Scriptural view of government, and about the relationship of the church to the magistrate. This week we spent a long time discussing their role as Christian citizens in Ukraine. Then, in the spirit of the tree being known by its fruit, we looked at how the Reformed view has actually worked out in history.
It's no coincidence that the freest, most prosperous countries were almost always those where the Reformed view was strongest -- Britain, Scotland, Holland, Switzerland, America, New Zealand, Australia, etc. Given the power of Presbyterianism in Korea, and the cultural, political and economic changes it's undergoing, I wonder if we won't add it to the list someday. . .
Posted by: Discoshaman at mai 2, 2004 10:59 PMIf that is your general point, I would readily agree, John. Democracy, as such, is never a panacea. I've linked to this post from my blog, midway through my thinking about South Africa after ten years of democracy.
An aside: I don't think you can call democracy in South Africa "Western-installed."
Posted by: Gideon Strauss at mai 3, 2004 02:58 PMGideon Strauss-
My fellow worker here is South African, and we've had some good talks about things, and I've known enough to hate Joe Slovo since I was about ten. Which means I know more than 99% of the American population. But I'll certaily defer to your superior knowledge in all of this. Please correct any inaccuracies in my opinions. :)
I agree that SA isn't entirely a Western-installed democracy. But my strong impression is that despite the work of many decent (if seemingly naive) human rights types in SA, the transition wouldn't have come anything like as soon as it did if it wasn't for massive Western pressure and sanctioning. Is my impression that WEstern pressure enabled the transition to democracy a false one?
Don't get me wrong about the human rights types. I think apartheid was a great injustice. I'm just not sure that giving power to people who thought necklacing was a legitimate form of political expression was a great leap forward. From everything I've seen, the situation didn't/doesn't lend itself to easy or comfortable answers no matter what tack one took/takes.
This is my take on things. I really am open to any clarifications of my impressions that you have to offer. :)
Posted by: Discoshaman at mai 4, 2004 07:12 AMOh grief, sure, the "situation didn't/doesn't lend itself to easy or comfortable answers"!
And sure, western pressure helped.
Posted by: Gideon Strauss at mai 5, 2004 07:55 AM