Should we spread democracy?

[Ranger2]

With the US and Cuba finally reestablishing diplomatic relations, there's been a lot of talk about whether or not Cuba will embrace liberal democratic reforms. Another country gaining freedom of the press, speech, and liberal values seems to be a win-win: it's best for the people of that country and also good for the West, who now gets a new trading partner. After all, as the Democratic Peace Theory states, democracies tend not to go to war with one another.

Ever since the 1980s there has been an especially philosophical bent with spreading democracy. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan ushered in the era of democracy being known as an inherent good. This paradigm is still around today and has only strengthened despite setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. This paradigm is not American alone; much of Western Europe is enthralled with this train of thought too.

What truth does this paradigm hold? How is the spread of democracy conducive to American interests? Should American foreign policy focus on spreading democracy, and if so, how? In essence, is it worth it, whether for interests or morals, for the US to support liberal democratic movements in other countries? Or should we work with current regimes to get the current governments to open up?

In essence, should we spread democracy, and if so, how?

[Camarohusky]

Democracy can spread, but it cannot be spread. It goes against it's very nature.

[Ranger2]

The US has a mixed record of supporting democratic movements and even helping to install democracies.

1939-1949: The democratic period
We succeeded in Germany and Japan because in both cases we bombed the people into absolute submission, had a greater mutual enemy we could turn them against (the USSR for Germany, China for Japan), gutted political reform (we stopped denazification early on in Germany and kept the Emperor in Japan) and implemented massive humanitarian aid to prevent starvation and keep order. The biggest democratic reforms happened gradually; nobody really thanked us for conquering them and installing democracy.

1949-1979: The realist period
Thanks to the Cold War and recent experiences in Germany, US officials learned that installing democracy is really tough and takes a lot of effort. It was much easier to prop up stable strongmen than take the time to nurture a democracy (which could become pro-Soviet).

1979-2004: the end of history period
When the US began to militarily and economically outperform the USSR, a lot of the rhetoric about democracy changed. Reagan turned it into a moral crusade: destroying communism and replacing it with a (capitalist) democracy was not only good for American interests, but it was also a moral imperative. This is where you get the "evil empire" deal. When the Cold War ended, there was the idea that American-style capitalist democracy was the only good form of government. When the US was attacked on 9/11, the perceived solution to terrorism was tolerant, capitalist, democratic values. This influenced our approach to Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, many assumed democracy was easy to spread and unlike Germany and Japan which required massive stabilization and aid efforts, simply overthrowing the bad guy (Saddam) should suffice. The idea that a democracy must be American-style pervaded until Paul Bremer left Iraq in 2004.

2004-Present: the mixed period
With the quagmire in Iraq, there was a lot of questioning about why democracy failed to spread in Iraq. Ideas were thrown around such as democracy is a Western concept and the Iraqis could not get used to it, or that there was too much instability, or that Iraqis were not trained in democracy, etc. While the belief that democracy is a moral good has not changed, beliefs behind how to spread it have. No one calls for a swift US occupation of foreign lands to support democratic governments, whether supporting local actors or building a government from the top down. Instead, the idea is that all people need is aid from far away and they can do the job themselves.
The intervention in Libya was an attempted reproduction of Iraq but without the long, drawn out occupation. Ousting Gaddafi has failed to bring stability. Because both large-scale occupation and aid from afar have failed, people are questioning the need to take out al-Assad. And especially with ISIS, we may need to ignore Iraq and Syria's undemocratic tendencies to attack the far greater threat of Islamist fundamentalist terrorism.

I think in the long run we will see a return to realism, and it cannot come too soon.

[Warforger]

At 7/22/15 12:55 PM, Ranger2 wrote: The US has a mixed record of supporting democratic movements and even helping to install democracies.

1939-1949: The democratic period
We succeeded in Germany and Japan because in both cases we bombed the people into absolute submission, had a greater mutual enemy we could turn them against (the USSR for Germany, China for Japan), gutted political reform (we stopped denazification early on in Germany and kept the Emperor in Japan) and implemented massive humanitarian aid to prevent starvation and keep order. The biggest democratic reforms happened gradually; nobody really thanked us for conquering them and installing democracy.

I mean 1949 is when they both became Democracies if I'm not mistaken. There was a big difference though between the Democracies of West Germany and Japan vs. the democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan; Germany and Japan had democracies prior to their totalitarian governments so they already had a democratic political class to choose for leaders. They already had people the entire nation could unite behind. Iraq and Afghanistan for the most part had to start from scratch (although the Afghans could've had a Constitutional Monarchy which could've helped but the West put too much trust in Karzai). The work of crafting the Democracy was mostly writing a Constitution which works and reinstating leaders from the past.

This is the same reason Grenada and Panama ended up being democracies again after US invasions; the governments were already there they were just reinstated. They already had leaders the whole country could get behind. This was not the case with Afghanistan nor Iraq.

1949-1979: The realist period
Thanks to the Cold War and recent experiences in Germany, US officials learned that installing democracy is really tough and takes a lot of effort. It was much easier to prop up stable strongmen than take the time to nurture a democracy (which could become pro-Soviet).

Well not as much realist. It was as idealistic as ever because it underestimated how much blame on these regimes the US would get and how much hatred they would bring up. Iran is a particular case. In fact Iran had a Democracy that was functional and that they had set up themselves, but the CIA and MI6 overthrew it to re-establish a dictatorship. Because of that Iran ended up becoming an enemy of the US due to the US's close relationship with the Shah.

1979-2004: the end of history period

Not really. The US was against a Federalist type government from cropping up in Eastern Europe and didn't want them to model their own governments after their own because it granted too much power to the Executive. The US preferred Parliamentary type governments where the Legislature had the most power. Of course one big Federalist government did arise; the Russian federation. So they were onto something.

2004-Present: the mixed period
With the quagmire in Iraq, there was a lot of questioning about why democracy failed to spread in Iraq. Ideas were thrown around such as democracy is a Western concept and the Iraqis could not get used to it, or that there was too much instability, or that Iraqis were not trained in democracy, etc. While the belief that democracy is a moral good has not changed, beliefs behind how to spread it have. No one calls for a swift US occupation of foreign lands to support democratic governments, whether supporting local actors or building a government from the top down. Instead, the idea is that all people need is aid from far away and they can do the job themselves.
The intervention in Libya was an attempted reproduction of Iraq but without the long, drawn out occupation. Ousting Gaddafi has failed to bring stability. Because both large-scale occupation and aid from afar have failed, people are questioning the need to take out al-Assad. And especially with ISIS, we may need to ignore Iraq and Syria's undemocratic tendencies to attack the far greater threat of Islamist fundamentalist terrorism.

I think in the long run we will see a return to realism, and it cannot come too soon.

The issue with the Middle East is a bit broader than that. When the West helped set up governments in Japan or Germany, there was already a nation there. There was a shared cultural and national history as well as leaders which would lend itself to a stable government. When the West tried the same in the Middle East they had much more trouble. Afghanistan has a better sense of statehood, not as much nationhood, but a definite sense that they are one country. Maybe not one people, but there aren't secessionist movements like there are elsewhere. In the Arab world ideologies which unite the people across state lines still pervade and they had for decades. No ideology from the Arab world seems to like having all these separate countries that were arbitrarily divided by European powers, they would like either a pan-Islamic country or a pan-Arab country and those have been ideologies of certain elites for a while, with Nasser, Qaddaffi, Hussein etc. as well as the multiple failed attempts at uniting Arab governments.

In fact there's a fight between those who want their separate nations, and those that want a Pan-Arab or Pan-Islamic state. In Iraq for example, after the King was overthrown the new Free Officer regime sought to promote Iraqi nationalism over pan-Arabism, and tried to accommodate the Kurds into its nation. It was eventually overthrown by Saddam Hussein's Ba'athists who then focused on Pan-Arabism.

Now there were some democracies in the Middle East, Syria and Lebanon were democracies after WWII for example. But they kept falling because the attitude of people in the Middle East has been that democracies are more a way for certain groups to gain power and if they want to gain their own power they have to take other means outside of democracy. Especially with Iraq I bet alot of Iraqi's don't consider Democracy legitimate there.

In Afghanistan the issue is more how people perceived statehood. For most Afghanni's, as long as the national government is stable and has its shit together they don't give a shit who's in power. So when Karzai was re-elected despite the fact that he isn't very popular the West was disappointed, but the Afghanni's view it more as the President was the puppet of the West anyway and it was up to them to choose their leader. So we need a better understanding of local political cultures before we make these laws.

I think ultimately any form of government that can even hope to be sustainable in the long run has to have a strong grassroots movement. That's how Democracy spread in Eastern Europe, South Africa and South America. It wasn't an invasion of armed revolt, but just a general consensus and referendum on the issue of democracy. Just look at the Arab Spring, no US invasion, but a whole bunch of attempted Democracies cropped up from the wood work that would've taken so much more time with a US invasion.

[aviewaskewed]

At 7/21/15 08:23 PM, Ranger2 wrote: With the US and Cuba finally reestablishing diplomatic relations, there's been a lot of talk about whether or not Cuba will embrace liberal democratic reforms.

I haven't heard that but....ok, I guess somebody has pipe dreams. Probably those same people that think the Constitution is divinely inspired and God's favorite colors are red, white, and blue.

Another country gaining freedom of the press, speech, and liberal values seems to be a win-win: it's best for the people of that country and also good for the West, who now gets a new trading partner. After all, as the Democratic Peace Theory states, democracies tend not to go to war with one another.

They tend not to. But I tend to think being TRADING partners and having a financial stake in one another (which is what our improved relations are ultimately and stated to be for) then it pretty much eliminates the chance of going to war too.

Ever since the 1980s there has been an especially philosophical bent with spreading democracy. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan ushered in the era of democracy being known as an inherent good. This paradigm is still around today and has only strengthened despite setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. This paradigm is not American alone; much of Western Europe is enthralled with this train of thought too.

It's a neat thought. Too bad when tried, like in Iraq and Afghanistan, the "spreading" which I would call "forcing at gunpoint" tends not to work. You can't FORCE someone to think your way, Democracy only successfully takes root in societies which decide that's the system they want. Not because somebody rolled in and force it on them. Every time that's been tried it goes over like a fart in church.

What truth does this paradigm hold?

Not much. Because as I said, force won't work.

How is the spread of democracy conducive to American interests?

Theoretically, it gives us new partners. I say theoretically because if you want TRUE democracy that means clean and free elections we don't fuck with and always running the risk that they elect somebody who absolutely hates us. So I tend to think our better bet is to do what we've done in situations like Saudi Arabia and what we're doing with Iran: Negotiate the best deals you can, and hold your nose and deal with them if they're monsters.

Should American foreign policy focus on spreading democracy, and if so, how?

No, we suck at it, it doesn't work, and the ideology behind it I think is always going to be force, and it's always going to need to come back to us getting our own way. If we WERE to try something like this, then I think setting a good example and maybe something more like a "missionary" situation like churches do where people try to teach children and adults about our systems and democratic principles might be our best bet. But that can always backfire like I pointed out before since even a democracy can elect bastards and people that we won't like and that won't like us back.

In essence, is it worth it, whether for interests or morals, for the US to support liberal democratic movements in other countries? Or should we work with current regimes to get the current governments to open up?

Support? Sure. Try to FORCE into existence (like Iraq and Afghanistan)? Fuck no. If such a movement crops up, I can see us obviously showing sympathy and maybe covert support. But in the end you have to work with who's there unless they really go over the line and you've got a clear path to remove them for something better.

[developous29]

@aviewaskewed:
Force has it's merits, as long as you don't abuse it. It's inevitable that at least some people will oppose any kind of system for the most part, so I've learned to live with force. But I hate force.

But I fully agree that it takes a considerable amount of time and effort to establish democracy. Usually too much for most common people. But I'm confident in the educational system to help that.

What I'm really concerned about, however, is how we operate on emotions more than logic.

[aviewaskewed]

At 7/24/15 04:57 PM, developous29 wrote: @aviewaskewed:
Force has it's merits, as long as you don't abuse it. It's inevitable that at least some people will oppose any kind of system for the most part, so I've learned to live with force. But I hate force.

Here's the thing for me though, and really what I'm saying: What we're talking about here is a foreign government (us) coming into a sovereign nation (take your pick out of the list we've done it with) and telling them "your system sucks, we're going to bomb it, shoot it, and have a whole war with all it's collateral damages and problems to abolish it" and then tell them HOW they are going to rebuild and what kind of government system their allowed to have afterwards. On the face of that, how likely do you think it is that's going to go over well? That is leaving out the incredibly shitty job we do rebuilding and how little attention we like to pay to the abuses of these democratic governments once installed. To me it's a loser from the outset to try and blow the place up and remake it in our image. We have the government we have because a large and dedicated faction decided that's how they wanted to live, and they fought and forced it into existence and anybody that didn't like it and didn't want to play was allowed to leave in peace when the dust settled.

But I fully agree that it takes a considerable amount of time and effort to establish democracy. Usually too much for most common people. But I'm confident in the educational system to help that.

In the end I think the issue is people have to WANT it. You didn't have a strong movement for Democracy in either Iraq or Afghanistan before we invaded. We just decided that's what they needed to have because it was convenient to us (and look how well that's worked out as we've spawned even greater enemies from the rubble and chaos and dissatisfaction). Even in spots in that region where you did have populist movements towards such, it's tended to eventually be stamped out. That's something else we have to consider when dealing with the Middle East especially: They are used to, and most comfortable with strong arm, authoritarian government. They were part of a larger empire for centuries, they have more loyalty to their ethnic identity then the national one (mostly I'd say because the national one was created by the West and not them). It's a learning curve that is radically different from North America and Europe. It's a completely different mindset so that's why it's always seemed to me that first you have to change their mind and show them their might be a better way to do things and allow those seeds to grow over time instead of just assuming you can fight and kill etc. your way into a change of opinion.

What I'm really concerned about, however, is how we operate on emotions more than logic.

How so? I'm not saying you're wrong on the face of it, I can think of some examples myself, but I'd rather hear what you have to say first so we can try and get on the same page from the start.

[Ranger2]

At 7/24/15 07:38 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Here's the thing for me though, and really what I'm saying: What we're talking about here is a foreign government (us) coming into a sovereign nation (take your pick out of the list we've done it with) and telling them "your system sucks, we're going to bomb it, shoot it, and have a whole war with all it's collateral damages and problems to abolish it" and then tell them HOW they are going to rebuild and what kind of government system their allowed to have afterwards.

There are success stories: Germany and Japan after WWII. The key thing in these two occupations was that we knew where to be heavy-handed and where not to be. In both cases we destroyed so many cities and soldiers that the populace was terrified of us; the Allies allowed no power vacuum. We were brutal and ruthless but that kept order. In doing so we made sure the only political voices heard were Allied-approved, not to mention the enormous effort of the Marshall Plan to revitalize Germany's and Japan's economies to the point where they would have their own economic miracles in the future.

In terms of reforming a system, I think what is supremely underappreciated is how little reforming we did. At the beginning of the German occupation there were massive denazification programs but they were scrapped by the end of 1945. Governor Lucius Clay gutted denazification and decartelization. He also allowed left-wing, socialist, anti-American political leaders like Kurt Schumacher to run for office despite the Red Scare. This ensured that the resulting government would encompass all political beliefs and prevent the dominant party from being seen as an American puppet and prevent those who are not liberal capitalist from flocking to the Soviets. In terms of Japan, we did not get rid of the Japanese government as much as work through the Emperor. In Japan, it was as if we had allowed the Nazi Flensberg government to continue. And again, this provided stability. Real liberalizing efforts came later when people's economic situations improved.

In Iraq we did the opposite. We did not do nearly enough to pacify the Iraqis into submission (politically incorrect but true) and we did not do nearly enough economic aid to prevent Iraqis from losing their jobs or starving. Where we did go overboard was in de-Baathifying the economy and political system and failing to work with leaders who were not liberal capitalist (like Shiite cleric al-Sistani) which in turn led to massive insurgencies. Those in the new Iraqi government were viewed as US puppets, and important actors who could have been powerful allies were spurned because they weren't democratic enough.

[Ranger2]

At 7/25/15 06:06 AM, lapis wrote: I'm sorry, but this is just overly US-centric. The occupation of Germany succeeded because the Germans wanted you to succeed, whereas the occupation of Iraq failed because the Iraqis wanted you to fail.

When did the Germans want us to succeed when we were occupying them? Nobody welcomed the Allies as liberators. Sure, nobody liked Hitler because they blamed him for causing the war, but nobody blamed anti-Semitism or fascism for their situation.
Another key feature was the USSR. The Germans, again, did not like the US but they hated the Soviets much more. They turned to democracy not so much because they loved Western democracy but because they hated Soviet communism more.

The Iraqis also initially greeted the US and UK as liberators, granted that sentiment lasted for maybe 2-3 weeks. Again, it wasn't because they loved America but because they hated Saddam. Then Iraqis wondered why there was still instability and no water or electricity. A lot of the hate came after Bush decided to appoint Bremer as head of the CPA and create Iraq's government from scratch. Many Iraqi leaders like Ayatollah al-Sistani were snubbed and many Sunnis feared that de-Baathification went too far. That was when they wanted us to fail because at that point in time the US only appeared to support liberal, tolerant, Western-oriented democratic Iraqi leaders (roughly 0% of the population)

Getting into Assad's tactics, you may have a point there. But remember that Saddam and Hafez al-Assad crushed many a revolt in their own countries the same way. I guess al-Assad is unwilling or unable to absolutely obliterate the cities opposing him.