Joseph S. Nye: Democracy Promotion Reconsidered
[The writer, a professor at Harvard, was rated by a recent poll as the most influential scholar on American foreign policy.]
Former president George W. Bush was famous for proclaiming the promotion of democracy a central focus of American foreign policy. He was not alone in this rhetoric. Most American presidents since Woodrow Wilson have made similar statements.
So it was striking when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified to Congress earlier this year about the “three Ds” of American foreign policy - defense, diplomacy and development. The “D” of democracy was noticeable by its absence, suggesting a change in policy by Barack Obama’s administration.
Both Bill Clinton and Bush frequently referred to the beneficial effects of democracy on security. They cited social science studies that show that democracies rarely go to war with each other. But, more carefully stated, what scholars show is that liberal democracies almost never go to war with each other, and it may be that a liberal constitutional culture is more important than the mere fact of elections.
While elections are important, liberal democracy is more than “electocracy”. Elections in the absence of constitutional and cultural constraints can produce violence, as in Bosnia or the Palestinian Authority. And illiberal democracies have fought each other, as Ecuador and Peru did in the 1990s.
In the eyes of many critics at home and abroad, the Bush administration’s excesses tarnished the idea of democracy promotion. Bush’s invocation of democracy to justify the invasion of Iraq implied that democracy could be imposed at the barrel of a gun. The word democracy came to be associated with its particular American variant, and took on an imperialist connotation.
Moreover, Bush’s exaggerated rhetoric was often at odds with his practice, giving rise to charges of hypocrisy. It was far easier for him to criticize Zimbabwe, Cuba and Burma than Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and his initial criticism of Egypt was soon toned down.
There is a danger, however, in over-reacting to the failures of the Bush administration’s policies. The growth of democracy is not an American imposition, and it can take many forms. The desire for greater participation is widespread as economies develop and people adjust to modernization. Democracy is not in retreat. Freedom House, a non-governmental organization, listed 86 free countries at the beginning of the Bush years, and a slight increase to 89 by the end of his term.
Democracy remains a worthy and widespread goal, but it is important to distinguish the goal from the means used to attain it. There is a difference between assertive promotion and more gentle support of democratization...
Read entire article at RealClearWorld
Former president George W. Bush was famous for proclaiming the promotion of democracy a central focus of American foreign policy. He was not alone in this rhetoric. Most American presidents since Woodrow Wilson have made similar statements.
So it was striking when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified to Congress earlier this year about the “three Ds” of American foreign policy - defense, diplomacy and development. The “D” of democracy was noticeable by its absence, suggesting a change in policy by Barack Obama’s administration.
Both Bill Clinton and Bush frequently referred to the beneficial effects of democracy on security. They cited social science studies that show that democracies rarely go to war with each other. But, more carefully stated, what scholars show is that liberal democracies almost never go to war with each other, and it may be that a liberal constitutional culture is more important than the mere fact of elections.
While elections are important, liberal democracy is more than “electocracy”. Elections in the absence of constitutional and cultural constraints can produce violence, as in Bosnia or the Palestinian Authority. And illiberal democracies have fought each other, as Ecuador and Peru did in the 1990s.
In the eyes of many critics at home and abroad, the Bush administration’s excesses tarnished the idea of democracy promotion. Bush’s invocation of democracy to justify the invasion of Iraq implied that democracy could be imposed at the barrel of a gun. The word democracy came to be associated with its particular American variant, and took on an imperialist connotation.
Moreover, Bush’s exaggerated rhetoric was often at odds with his practice, giving rise to charges of hypocrisy. It was far easier for him to criticize Zimbabwe, Cuba and Burma than Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and his initial criticism of Egypt was soon toned down.
There is a danger, however, in over-reacting to the failures of the Bush administration’s policies. The growth of democracy is not an American imposition, and it can take many forms. The desire for greater participation is widespread as economies develop and people adjust to modernization. Democracy is not in retreat. Freedom House, a non-governmental organization, listed 86 free countries at the beginning of the Bush years, and a slight increase to 89 by the end of his term.
Democracy remains a worthy and widespread goal, but it is important to distinguish the goal from the means used to attain it. There is a difference between assertive promotion and more gentle support of democratization...