DEMOCRATIZATION
[Name]
[Date]
Democratization
Since the democratization process began, western actors led by their states, have been promoting democracy across the world as the most fashionable political system in the world. However, with mixed results across many nations, there has been heated debate as to whether international factors, including democracy promotion policies of western actors, impede or promote democracy (Masci 2003; Hobsbawn 2004; Sen 2005). While some see western actors as crucial allies in the democratization process, some political observers have concluded that the globalisation of democracy is nothing but democratic imperialism. Critics of western actors contend that what is happening in the name of promoting democracy is imposition of western values to foreign countries either by force or other means (Encarnacion 2005; Diamond 2010). It is within this debate that some have concluded that, “democratization must come from within. It cannot be fostered by external factors”. Such an argument may gain credence considering that there are situations where interplay of international factors has failed to yield intended results, but the significance of external actors cannot be disregarded on few failures. Considering that external factors have yielded mixed results, it easier to conclude that democratization process is won by having the right combinations of external actors and domestic conditions.
When the U.S, in 2003, toppled the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, many western sceptics interpreted it as the return of “democratic imperialism”. According to western critics, the U.S and its western allies, have apportioned themselves the role of global moral crusaders, and in these, the western actors assume that they have a right to impose their democratic ideals to other nations (McFaul, Magen and Stoner-Weiss 2009). Those who resist foreign interventions argue that the best democracy is the one that comes from within. Such an understanding may gain credibility considering that the democratization process championed by U.S in Iraq since 2003 has since faltered, Afghanistan continue to register mixed results while the democratic principles that had gained credence in Russia and other parts of Soviet Union has since rolled back. It is too early to conclude the direction that the recent Arab spring will take, but for a start, there enough elements to indicate that the attempt to replace the authoritarian regimes in Libya and Egypt are likely to falter.
When the U.S invaded Iraq in 2003, George W. Bush asserted that the ousting of Saddam authoritarian regime and replacing it with a democratically elected government “would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region” (Bush 2005, p.122). It is not president Bush who believed in the revolutionary step of the Iraq war. The New Republic magazine believed that the war against the Saddam Hussein was important to destroy Iraq tyranny and the “creation of Iraqi democracy are potentially revolutionary events, audacious responses to a moral horror that degraded and threatened the Middle East” (2003, p.7). When finally the U.S organised for a relatively free election in Iraq, President Bush remarked that by participating in the election in great numbers, the Iraqis had shown their commitment to democracy and “firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists” (Bush, 2005).
One decade down the line, the prospects of Iraq democracy is still uncertain even after Iraq organising two consecutive relatively free elections. The main challenge of Iraq democracy is creating a balance of power among the three main communities: Arab Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. It appears that for democracy to take roots in Iraq, the fundamental step would be a reconciliation of the three violent communities. This is more of an internal solution that can be initiated by the leaders from the three communities as opposed to a military intervention. However, this does not mean that foreign actors cannot come in to offer financial and technical aid to foster the reconciliation or assist in diplomacy and socialisation techniques to foster democracy (Henninger 2004).
The recent Arab Spring in Middle East and Northern Africa Arab countries gives an insight into challenges facing democracy in the 21st century. Although the uprising in the Middle East authoritarian states combines both internal and external factors, it cannot be lost that foreign intervention in Libya, Egypt, and Syria played a significant role. What is appearing to be the hard fact to accept is that in a countries that experienced the revolution and the uprising, only Tunisia can be considered to have successfully (although debatable) transitioned to democracy. After the much hyped revolution and uprising, Egypt has reverted back to military rule, the Bahrain’s royal house has withered the revolution, Syria is in the brink of civil war, and Libya and Yemen have been left as failed states.
The case of Libya and Egypt are aptly interesting. After the UN Security council authorised intervention in Libya on the grounds of humanitarian concern, NATO combined forces with other international players to commence the process of democratization in the country. The task of heading the new government was placed on the shoulders of the vaguely constituted National Transition Council (NTC) composed of the revolutionary forces that ousted Gaddafi despotic rule (Echagile 2012). Three years down the line, the guns have not silenced. The new government has failed to take hold. The revolutionary forces are in fight with the tribesmen while the supporters of the slain autocrat Muammar Gaddafi are slowly regrouping. In all essence, Libya is slowly acquiring the characteristics of failed state, or in more polite terms, a failed government. The same situation is being replicated in Yemen.
In Egypt, after the fall of Hosni Mubarak, it was expected that democratization process would begin after the coming into power of the first freely elected civilian government. Barely before the new president could celebrate his first anniversary supporter were back to the street to demand his removal. The protestors accused the new president of failing to bring unity and initiate political reforms. In the elections that took place between 26 and May 2014, the Egyptians overwhelmingly elected the former military chief Abdel Fattah el-Sisi after garnering 96 percent of the vote. With the military rule firmly in grip, it is uncertain the direction the democratization process will take in Egypt.
The experiences of the Arab Spring gives credence to the notion that democratization must come from within. It cannot be fostered by external factors. At worst, the Arab Spring, has not only failed, it has crippled the national economies in Middle East and North Africa countries. Although the international community warmed up to the expectation that the revolution and the uprising would replace the authoritarian rule in the middle east with democratically elected government, the experience indicate that there are domestic condition that must be present in a country before political freedom can take root. Such conditions were not present in the Arab world.
Determinants of Democracy
Before analysing the argument that “democracy must come from within; it cannot be fostered by external actors”, it is important to understand the theories that have been put forward to understand democratization. Scholars of democracy, starting with the ancient Aristotle have tried to understand the determinants of democracy. Such factors as modernisation, social environment, culture, religion and fractionalisation are considered as important determinants of democracy. Championing the modernisation hypothesis, Lipset (1994) argued that democracy is more likely to emerge and take root in more affluent and educated societies. In contrast, Weber (1930) and Huntington (1993) argued that the role of social environment is more important than income factors in shaping democracy. Such social environment includes culture, religion and fractionalisation (Papaioannou and Siourounis 2008). Friedman (1962) argued that economic liberalism was an important underlying factor in the democratisation process. In recent studies, focusing on middle East and Africa, scholars have carried research as to what extent presence of oil and natural resources ( in what is now know as the resource curse) impede democracy(Ross 2001). When it comes to resource curse plenty of authoritarian states – Congo, most of the oil rich Middle East nations, Sudan, Iraq- come to mind.
Building on these theories, many scholars (Glaeser et al 2004; Lopez-Cordova and Meissner 2005; and Acemoglu and Robinson 2006) have tried to draw the importance of economic and social preconditions to democratization process. Such an understanding is important to answer the question whether democratization must come from within and discern the role that international actors play in promoting democracy.
From the above theories of democratization, it is easier to understand the determinant factors that were absent in Middle East and North Africa to sustain the democratization process. From the theories, the economic and social preconditions of democracy can be broken down to a vibrant and strong middle class, educated population, homogenous societies, active civil societies, safeguards of the rights of minorities, and last but not least, presence of democratic ideals within the society (Bhunia 2013). Most of the authoritarian states miss several of these ingredients.
Like Lipset (1994) observed in his modernisation hypothesis, it is no accident that democratic states are commonly found in more advanced state with stronger middle class and educated population. Although venturing in this argument can re-open the unending debate on which comes first between democracy and development, it is evident that states with strong and educated middle class are likely to be more liberal. A strong and educated middle class demand accountability from their leaders and is likely to make more informed choices in the ballot. In several of the authoritarian rules such Iraq, Congo, Libya, Syria, Egypt and many more, there is likely to be presence of power competition based on religious or ethnic groups. It therefore follows that ethnic and religious homogeneity (although not ultimate) is a positive ingredient for democracy (Smooha and Jarve 2005). The absences of such internal factors are credible explanations of why the Arab Spring failed to jump start the democratization process in Middle East.
Nonetheless, it does not mean that the presence of the necessary determinants of political freedom in country will automatically spur democratization. Sometimes, a combination of domestic conditions and foreign intervention are necessary to replace an authoritarian rule with a democratic government. In South Africa for instance, it took the intervention of international community to end the apartheid rule. Apartheid rulers in South Africa only agreed to political reforms after a series of economic sanctions and political pressure from international community led by the United Nations. However, it is important to point out that such economic sanctions have not yielded significant results in Iran and Syria. The case of Iran and Syria shows the need to tamper foreign intervention with domestic conditions.
Although the democratization process in Iraq is considered much as a failure than a success, the role of the United States in ending Saddam Hussein despotic rule cannot not be underestimated. It took the U.S intervention to end the Arab Sunnis dominance of the state power. The organization of relatively free elections is also a major milestone towards democracy. If only the foreign actors can help the three communities in Iraq to reconcile, the country can smoothly transition to a democracy (Buruma 2004). In Chile, like many authoritarian rules, foreign actors have stepped in to help nations organize and hold free and fair elections. If it were not for the export of election monitoring technologies in Chile and Serbia, parallel vote tabulation and exit polls, both states could not have ended Pinochet and Milosevic respectively.
Conclusion
Internal factors are necessary prerequisite determinants of democracy, but the role of external actors cannot be ignored. It is the role of external actors to understand when and how to apply the external incentives or force to initiate democratization process. Such international factors as diplomacy, financial and technical aid, demonstration effects, and socialisation techniques are important to help a country transition from authoritarian rule to democracy. Perhaps what is required in some of the recently democratizing states is for the population to understand that democracy is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end.
List of references
Acemoglu D & Robinson JA (2006) Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Bhunia A (2013) the Middle East, Democratization, and the Arab Spring. Foreign Policy Journal [Online] http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/10/16/the-middle-east-democratization-and-the-arab-spring/ 9Accessed on June 11, 2014).
Buruma I (2004) An Islamic Democracy for Iraq. New York Times Magazine Vol. 154, p.42
Bush GW (2005) Address to the Nation on the Iraqi Elections. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Vol. 41(5), p.122
Bush GW (February 7, 2005) Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents. Washington, DC: White House
Diamond L et al (2010) Debates on Democratization. New York: JHU Press
Echagile A (2012) The Role of External Actors in the Arab Transitions. FRIDE Policy Brief No. 122
Encarnacion OG (2005) The Follies of Democratic imperialism. World Policy Journal Vol. 22(1), pp. 47-60
Friedman M (1962) Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: university of Chicago Press.
Glaeser EL et al (2004) Do institutions Cause Growth? Journal of Economic Growth Vol. 9(1), p. 271-303
Henninger D (2004) Kiev to Baghdad: Diverse People Chase Same Goal. Wall Street journal- Eastern Edition Vol. 244(114):14
Hobsbawn EJ (2004) Spreading Democracy. Foreign Policy Vol. 144: 40
Huntington, SP (1993) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press
Lipset MS (1994) The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited. American Sociological Review Vol. 59(1), p.1-22
Lopez-Cordova E & Meissner C (2005) Globalization and Democracy. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 11117
Masci D (2003) The Issues. CQ Researcher Vol. 13 (26): 627
McFaul M, Magen A & Stoner-Weiss K (2009) Evaluating International Influences on Democratic Transition: Concept Paper. Stanford: CDDRL
New Republic Magazine (2003) Mission Incomplete. New Republic Vol. 228 (20), p7
Papaioannou, E & Siourounis G (2008) Economic and Social Factors Driving the Third Wave of Democratization. Athens: Dartmouth College
Ross ML (2001) Does Oil Hinder Democracy? World Politics Vol. 53(1), p.225-361
Sen A (2005) Democracy and Its Global Roots. New Republic Vol. 229(14): 28
Smooha S & Jarve P (2005) The Fate of Ethnic Democracy in Post-Communist Europe. Zuric: European Centre for Minority Issues.
Weber M (1930) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Harper Collins
