The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the policy of democracy building that has been pursued by the United States(US) since World War II. The definition of a democracy, the history of democracy building, and the current form of this policy will be addressed. I will then provide a recommendation as to whether this policy should continue to be pursued, and if so, in what form.
Democracy consists of several crucial elements, the most important of which is a system for choosing the governing authorities through fair and open elections. This element has been a major focus of US efforts. Often a country will be labeled a success by the media if they achieve one free election. A second element is the participation of the majority of the population in politics and in civil affairs. This has been lacking in US efforts. It is extremely difficult to impose security over an entire country. The main cities can be made safe for voters and free of corruption, but there is logistically no way to ensure this across a nation. An election is meaningless if there is no guarantee for each citizen to have an opportunity to vote. A third element is a guarantee of basic human rights for all citizens. This has generally been priority number one of military action by the US. Finally, democracy requires the rule of law. Citizens must be able to expect their laws to be enforced fairly and not to be changed without warning. This element is also lacking from democracy building projects after US military forces scale back their presence, as the local militias have no interest in risking their lives for the rule of law.
Democracy building can be broken up into four time periods: Post-WWII, Cold War, the Reagan years, and the War on Terror. Democracy building was initially implemented in the years immediately following World War II to prevent the spread of the Soviet Union and communism. NATO and similar European multi-national organizations were quickly established with the support of the US to allow countries like Italy and Spain to establish functioning democracies. As the Cold War developed, the US increasingly backed autocratic leaders in order to oppose Soviet interests. This is most clearly seen in South American dictatorships that were supported by the US to prevent a power vacuum form being filled by a communistic and Soviet state so close to the homeland. This policy continued until the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan’s administration came to the conclusion that opposing autocratic leaders was worth the risk. As a result, foreign policy took a much harder line against non-democratic nations. Nations like Taiwan and the Philippines are democracies today as a result of this policy change. In recent years, democracy building has been centered mainly on the Middle East as a result of the 9/11 attacks and the realization of the extremist Islamic threat.
Now that we understand where Democracy building started, we will look at the recent and current state of this policy. However, several factors have stymied these efforts. Counterterrorism and military efforts being used in conjunction with democracy programs often impress upon indigenous populations the effect of being invaded rather than liberated. Military action is not an effective constructor of democracy; however, it is needed to remove autocratic and oppressive regimes. Yet another problem in recent years has been the election of Islamic extremist leaders and parties. When this happens, military action is inevitably taken, and the whole process begins again. This cycle often repeats itself until the US is reduced to preaching democratic rhetoric without meaningful action. This cycle has been compounded in the past few years by the Arab Spring movements. Multiple autocratic governments were overthrown, but few were replaced by stable democracies. There is a case to be made that this is a result of US inaction during the revolts, but there is also a case to be made that meaningful US involvement would have only made the problem worse.
5. In light of the information above, my recommendation regarding Democracy Building is that the policy not only be continued, but these efforts must be redoubled. While there have been setbacks and failures in recent years, there is no room in the world for the US to back down. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, the recent rise of China must be contested, both economically and politically. China is expanding rapidly, pulling East Asian nation-states such as Pakistan under its umbrella. Analysts have described China’s moves by saying, “It’s a blueprint as clear as can be for colonization.” (India&Pakistan). China’s leader, President Xi, is holding onto the autocratic reigns in his country, and looks to have no intention of stepping down. As Mr. Xi’s umbrella expands, he is not only challenging local Asian allies such as Japan and India, but the very ideas of democracy and capitalism. Mr. Xi is quietly positioning himself as the alternative to Trump and the US. China is outperforming the US economically, politically, and soon, militarily. China has started selling armed drones to smaller countries that the US has traditionally refused to deal with. China increased military spending by 118%. The US has dropped military spending by 4.8%. While the US has backed away from the failures of the Middle East, China has taken Asia, and soon Europe and the Middle East.
However, the US must implement democracy building in a much smarter way. The majority of the Middle Eastern countries are simply not ready to establish a stable, functional democracy. The US has focused on the hopeless cases while neglecting the wavering. Instead, the US should focus on countries that are wavering between the western model and the new Chinese model. Examples include Pakistan, India, and France. We must not neglect these countries because they are “stable.” These countries must be befriended and built into economically and politically. Engaging with autocratic states militarily has its place, and is necessary to prevent atrocities, but we must not allow these objectives to prevent us from seeing the larger picture. Make no mistake, we must engage in the Middle East and prevent radical Islamic states from arising, but that is primarily a security and humanitarian concern, not a political or economic one. When we engage in that kind of action, we must swiftly follow with the implementation of a judicial system and sustainable elections. We cannot pull forces after the first election and assume a stable judicial system will follow. Essentially, we cannot win the battles of Middle Eastern failed states at the expense of winning the war for worldwide democracy.
Works Cited:
Berkeley, Jon. The world’s most powerful man: Xi Jinping has more clout than Donald Trump. The world should be wary. The Economist, 14 October, 2017. https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21730144-do-not-expect-mr-xi-change-china- or-world-better-xi-jinping-has-more-clout
Lagon, Mark. The Whys and Hows of Promoting Democracy. Council on Foreign Relations, 11 Feburary 2011. https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/whys-and-hows-promoting-democracy
Rodenback, Max. India and Pakistan – Hissing Cousins: Why they hate each other. The Economist, 22 July 2017. https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21725099- three-score-and-ten-years-after-their-acrimonious-split-india-and-pakistan- remain?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/whyindiaandpakistanhateeachother
Tian, Nan, Aude Fleurant, Pieter Wezeman and Siemon Wezeman. Trends in Military Expenditure. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, April 2017. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/Trends-world-military-expenditure-2016.pdf
____. What is Democracy? Lecture at Hilla University for Humanistic Studies, 21 January 2004. https://web.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/WhaIsDemocracy012004.htm