As I’ve mentioned before on this blog, the end of the Cold War left many people looking for new ways to understand international affairs. Starting in the early 1990’s, many people began to feel that democracy had won the final chapter in world affairs and it was just a matter of when and how it enveloped the world. Francis Fukuyama’s book The End of History and the Last Man championed this mentality, basically that nations were all on a one way street that ended at liberal democracy – while accepting that different nations may be moving at very different speeds on that road. Thomas Friedman has also written a lot of influential work that ties democracy and economic prosperity, leading some others to believe that democracy is an inevitable side effect of the economic growth in the globalizing world economy. Leading the charge in putting our full faith in the future of democracy was George Bush’s freedom agenda, a mentality and policy that led us into two wars on the premise that freedom was every person’s deepest desire, and that democracy was the path to achieve it.
However; since 9/11 people have once again brought into question democracy’s future. While most scholars saw the 1990’s as the age of democracy, some see the 21st century as the possible age of decline for the Western model of liberal democracy and free markets. Some have seen the questionable progress in the democratization of Iraq and Afghanistan as evidence that democracy isn’t as inevitable as we once thought. Recent events such as the Arab Spring, Communist China’s rise, and the West’s current economic instability make this issue extremely important. Is liberal democracy a universal model that can prevail everywhere, including Muslim nations? Is there a direct relationship between liberal democracy and economic success, or is China proving that a more authoritarian model may be compatible with a modern economy? And is a liberal democracy too susceptible to popular opinion and short-term priorities to be economically stable in the long term? I can’t answer these questions, but I would like to apply the lessons of recent history to present a more realistic model for the future. I think the examples of Afghanistan, Iraq, and China make it apparent that freedom isn’t as simple as letting people vote. In fact I’d like to use those examples to postulate my own theory of democratization in a few paragraphs.
While I believe deeply in the importance of freedom, I hope you won’t consider me unpatriotic if I suggest that political freedom isn’t always our most fundamental need. As I’ve stated before, I am firmly committed to the spread of freedom and democracy, and have committed my career and life if necessary to that goal. However, I think what we need to learn is that there are a few stepping stones on the path to liberty that can’t be overlooked. First, I believe that the fundamental need for physical security runs deeper than the need for political freedom in most cases. I believe Iraq, and Afghanistan in particular, is teaching us this lesson. I think our slow progress in creating stable democracies has been in part due to the fact that we have failed to provide complete physical security. As I’ve said before, we tried to invade and occupy two nations without calling it an occupation and without committing the necessary number of troops to ensure the local populace had total physical security. While I think every human being desires freedom, many aren’t willing to gamble their life to support democracy. Most would accept a certain amount of political restrictions on their freedom if they knew their lives and families would not be in danger. There are of course exceptions to this rule, but these exceptions generally only occur with people who have a reasonable hope that certain sacrifices will lead to an improved condition of security, prosperity, and liberty (the case of the American Revolution). If we want a people to accept a regime that provides political freedom, the people MUST know that it will first provide physical security.
Second, I believe that China is proving that economic progress can be more important to a people than political freedom. The Chinese government has taken big gambles in their responses to the Tiananmen Square incident of 1989 and contemporary political dissidents. Rather than reforming toward liberal democracy in response to these incidents, the government chose to react authoritatively, risking a popular uprising. Why didn’t the people respond as Libyans and Egyptians did? Why didn’t they revolt against a government that denies them the basic freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly? They have a more educated, modern, and Western accepting population than Libya or Egypt, yet the Chinese weren’t the ones taking to the streets and risking their lives to end oppression. Why? I believe there are two reasons for the difference. People in China have physical security, they know that the government won’t randomly imprison or kill them if they go about their normal lives – only if they actively incite the government. Second, the economy is working. People in China are getting richer. The country’s economy has been growing at unprecedented rates for 30 years. They have had the most successful economic growth in the history of the world for three decades under the current Communist regime, and the people are willing to accept some restrictions to their political freedoms to ensure that continues.
As further support, I just finished Fareed Zakaria’s book, The Future of Freedom. In it, he discusses the disconnect that can exist between liberty and democracy. Democracy is merely one form of liberty – the right to choose one’s own government. He makes it apparent that democracy isn’t always a necessary condition for, or a guaranteed protection of, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Based on historical evidence, he demonstrates that roughly half of all nations that try to democratize before reaching a certain economic threshold ($3,000-$6,000 per capita income) fail in the attempt. Nearly every country that democratizes after that threshold is successful. So while “Live Free or Die” might be New Hampshire’s state motto, it may not be a good idea to apply that universally. Perhaps China is more likely to become a stable, liberal nation if we allow them to focus on continued economic development instead of bullying them into premature democratic elections. Perhaps our goal shouldn’t be for every third world nation to democratically elect their own leaders, but rather to provide physical security, basic justice, and economic opportunity to its citizens.
In summary, I believe we have inaccurately assumed that instilling democracy, through any means and in any situation, will make the world safer and more prosperous. Perhaps we need to focus more on sharing economic systems of growth rather than political systems. I believe that democracy is beneficial and essential, but I also believe that the only way to achieve liberal democracy is to build a solid economic foundation first. How we build economic foundations, however; is complicated matter for another article.