Exporting Freedom and Democracy—Three Factors Necessary for Success
“Americans should not try to impose their way of life on other societies.” “Some populations are not ready for democracy.” “What is viable in one political culture may not be viable in another.” These are some of the statements we hear from those who believe American foreign policy is too ambitious when the goal is to liberate societies captured by totalitarianism and replace those repressive governments with democracies. Those taking this position would argue that the supposed folly of “exporting democracy” has been demonstrated to Americans by the recent difficulties with establishing a functioning government in Iraq, and by the recent election of Hamas by Palestinians (discussed in a recent column). They would also argue that American involvement in Viet Nam in the 1960s and 1970s was the ultimate example of the proof of these statements.
The problems establishing democracy in societies historically unfamiliar with the concept are not insurmountable, and any culture in the world is capable of maintaining a free, democratic system. We hear arguments that Islam is incompatible with democracy—that the Koran and Sharia/Islamic Law cannot coexist with a free society. But Turkey and Indonesia are functioning democracies with primarily Muslim populations. Each in its own way has reconciled Islamic tradition with a free, democratic society. Japan and Germany had little democratic tradition before their successful post World War II democracies were established. Both nations had been hijacked by fanatic extremists, and seemed completely unlikely candidates for democracy at the birth of their democracies. Many recently liberated eastern European countries, with little tradition of democracy, have established thriving democracies. These democracy success stories span the globe, reflecting wide and varied religious, cultural and ethnic traditions.
So, why do some countries make an easier transition to democracy and freedom while others either have difficulties or fail? There are three worldviews, prevalent in American political culture, which need to be substantially present for a successful transition to occur. These could be called “American values,” but they are not really culture-specific ideas. They are fundamental assumptions about the world, approaches to everyday life that are certainly American, but not exclusively American, and are transferable to all cultures. They are the equality ethic, the confidence of personal security, and a belief in mutual prosperity as opposed to a zero-sum game.
The Equality Ethic:
It is not enough for a society to pay lip service to the idea that all within its borders will be treated equally under the law. The people must believe such a world is possible. They must believe that equality of opportunity and social mobility will exist in their economic and political system as a fundamental, permanent element. Otherwise, members of the country will remain constantly fearful that one group can turn on another to dominate politically and economically, and elections will become power-plays between contending groups instead of processes where citizens make choices based on leadership and policies in the best interests of the entire nation. These contending groups could be Sunni and Shiite, Catholics and Protestant, or rich and poor. It is a problem not confined to Muslim societies alone, and it is a problem that can be addressed in Muslim societies trying to make the move from totalitarianism to democracy and freedom. The citizens of the country must develop a confidence that their society is fair. Though some in the society will always succumb to believing they are victims, the predominant sentiment across all the constituent groups of the society must be a confidence that all individuals are considered equal under the law.
The Confidence of Personal Security:
We Americans like to emphasize the aspirations of human beings to live in freedom. The speeches of President Kennedy of the 1960s, President Reagan of the 1980s and President George W. Bush of the 2000s are only recent examples of the expression of this American ideal. One of the most famous quotes from the American Revolution was Patrick Henry’s unequivocal pronouncement: “Give me liberty or give me death.” But in fact, this is not really the priority for a typical human being. When we look at Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, we note that physical safety is the second most fundamental need, after the physical needs of food, water and air. “Freedom” comes well after physical safety. According to Maslow, it comes at least after the need for belonging. The need for freedom’s placement in the Hierarchy of Needs arguably comes either under self-esteem, or self-actualization, both well after the priority of physical safety.
The point is that people are not going to be concerned about freedom if they are not fed, and not safe. Revolutions with a “give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death” rallying cry emerged either on the tide of rising expectations, like the American Revolution, or on the tide of desperation, where survival was at stake for the rebels. It is human nature to choose the certainty of survival in an unfree society over the uncertainty of survival in a society struggling to be free. People will long for the return of that repressive dictator and curse their liberators if their personal security seems to remain in unending jeopardy. So people must develop confidence that their personal security is assured or they will not accept a move to democracy as in their interests. An initial fight for liberation can be understood—an unending instability replacing the former regime will make the people long for the tyrant. This is because most people understand that if you give them death, liberty won’t be much of an issue.
The Belief in Mutual Prosperity:
Most importantly, and this may be the most American of these necessary worldviews, and the hardest to accept, is the belief that people can prosper together—they do not have to prosper at one another’s expense. In classic game theory, it is the embrace of mutual gain over the zero sum game. It is the idea that wealth is infinite, that prosperity creates prosperity, that we should want thriving neighbors because their prosperity benefits us. This may be the toughest, most progressive and truly modern concept of the three. It is counterintuitive—it was an incorrect view of the world until very recently. Throughout history, what one person had, another did not have. What one tribe had, another tribe did not have. In fact, what tribe one possessed might have been forcibly taken from tribe two. That concept evolved and extrapolated to ancient empires, and was inherited by the colonial powers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It’s the conservation of mass and energy principle applied to a concept of “conservation of wealth.”
The zero-sum attitude, the idea that my neighbor’s prosperity is probably at my expense, is ingrained in many societies. In fact, the more ancient societies, with the longer traditions of exploiters and exploited, struggling for finite shares of wealth and prosperity, arguably have the most difficult time accepting the mutual prosperity concept. Even the so-called first democracy of Ancient Greece built its democracy on the labor of a huge slave population.
But people from societies all over the world, from many different ethnic, religious and cultural traditions, have come to the United States, embraced mutual prosperity, and thrived. The American success story is the greatest argument against the zero sum attitude. Doubters should be offered large doses of experience with the American version of mutual prosperity. Most of us from the Iron Curtain era can offer at least a few stories of visitors from the Soviet Union or eastern Europe who were overwhelmed with the vast and varied offerings of consumer goods as contrasted with the lines and shortages in their own countries. I recall one woman visitor who actually believed the American supermarket she visited was staged for her benefit—such a store could not really exist in the world. (Her government told her to expect such propaganda stunts by the imperialist Americans.) The knowledge of such possibilities certainly helped the Free World’s assault on the Iron Curtain, and the quick acceptance of democracy and embrace of Americans by many of the newly liberated eastern European nations.
— — — — — — —
Identifying these three elements helps us define the transition problem for the nations trying to emerge from totalitarianism to democracy, and pulls the issue out of culture and religion specific biases, where it does not belong. The way these elements should be addressed will vary from situation to situation. And addressing them will be easier in some circumstances than in others. But by understanding these fundamentally necessary worldviews for a thriving democracy—and by realizing that while they have a strong American character, they are not exclusively American, they did not originate solely in America, and they have a universal appeal that transcends America—we can try to continue the spread of democracy and freedom at every opportunity, maybe one day to every corner of the world. Let freedom and democratically functioning governments rule the world, evolving in their own unique ways. Then we can all embrace a mutual prosperity for humanity. And we can consider that if there will ever be a world government, these three worldviews will be on hand, permeating the international political culture. If that day comes, we will be able to talk about mutually assured prosperity, replacing the scary Cold War concept of “mutually assured destruction.”
Richard Warren Field is the author of the upcoming novel, The Swords of Faith. For more information, go to RichardWarrenField.com.
We invite your comments.
If you wish to duplicate any of this material, please review our terms and conditions for the use of materials from this site.