| |
August 7, 2006
Editor's note: A version of this article first appeared in Islam Online
(www.islamonline.net) on June 25, 2006.
It is published here with permission.
“To go to war for an idea, if the war is aggressive and not defensive, is as
criminal as to go to war for territory or revenue; for it is as little
justifiable to force our ideas on other people, as to compel them to submit to
our will in any other respect.” With these words, written in 1859, John Stuart
Mill stated limitations to intervention that are as valid today as they were
then.
Is democracy promotion an exception to the rule? This question is at the
heart of many current debates in the international system, not least of which is
the war in Iraq. My answer is no, although I find this position problematic
because I believe that democracy is the best political system of all those in
existence. According to most political theorists, democracy at its most basic is
rule by the people, which usually includes competitive elections, a constitution
that protects individual rights, and a separation of powers.
Democratic governance provides the best chance for individual citizens to
achieve their interests in relation to their fellow citizens. Those interests
can include security, wealth, and even happiness. By giving individuals the
right to participate in government, democracy provides a weak guarantee that a
person’s human rights will be respected. Democracy also provides some assurance
that no single powerful individual or faction will be able to dominate the
political system.
Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant in the late 18th century argued that
democracies, or what he called republics, are more peaceful than other forms of
government. Evidence from international relations theory supports Kant’s claim,
demonstrating that democracies tend not to go to war with other democracies.
While democracies certainly use military force—the United States today, Great
Britain and France in the first half of the 20th century being perfect
examples—evidence compiled through various studies suggests that they rarely if
ever go to war with one another.
While democratic states tend to protect their own citizens and tend to be
more peaceful, does it follow that democratic systems ought to be imposed on
communities by the use of military force?
The quote from J. S. Mill suggests that while some liberal theory might
support the use of force to promote democracy, other traditions within
liberalism are more opposed. Mill’s argument, one shared by Michael Walzer in
the first edition of Just
and Unjust Wars, is that communities fighting to promote their own
rights must rely on their own purposes.
The just war tradition, a body of thought that has developed over time to
evaluate the use of military force, does not support the use of force to promote
democracy. The established reasons for using force in the tradition are three:
self-defence, retaking stolen property, and punishment. These do not include
promoting democracy.
Justifications for using force in international law get closer to promoting
democracy, but they also do not allow it. International law allows war for
self-defence and has, over the past 20 years, begun to develop a justification
for using force to protect human rights. If democracy is considered a human
right, then perhaps it might be justifiable according to international law. I
would argue, however, that democracy is not a human right, but, rather, it
provides the best defence of human rights for individuals.
We have, thus, something of a dilemma. On the one hand, we see that democracy
can be argued to be the best political system. On the other hand, we have a
strong resistance to using force to promote democracy in liberal theory, the
just war tradition, and international law. Is there any way out?
One possible avenue to escape this dilemma comes from the writings of the
former Secretary General of the United Nations Boutros Boutros-Ghali. In 1996,
as he was being forced out of office by the United States, Boutros-Ghali
published the last of his three Agenda documents, Agenda for
Democratisation.[1] In that document, Boutros-Ghali argued
that the United Nations, as representative of the international community,
should actively promote democracy. During his tenure, the United Nations did
exactly this, by helping to run elections in Cambodia.
But, importantly, Boutros-Ghali also argued that democracy is not something
that occurs only inside states. Rather, democratization should take place among
states at the international level as well. In other words, until the
international community as a whole becomes democratic—i.e., decision making in
various international bodies needs to be more inclusive and representative, and
should have more balance among the powers—democracy cannot be promoted at the
national level.
Turning Boutros-Ghali's idea into reality is challenging, for certain. One
possible way to do this is through greater inclusion of NGOs in various
international conferences—a strategy initiated by Boutros-Ghali during his
tenure, when he invited various groups to Conventions in Cairo (on women) and
Vienna (on human rights). While including NGOs does not ensure that democracy
will flourish around the world, by giving these groups more of a role in
international governance, they might have more of a role in domestic governance.
The current conflict in Iraq demonstrates the dangers of promoting democracy
in an undemocratic international system. While many Iraqis are glad to be rid of
Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship, they are loath to accept the presence of American
guns and soldiers in their country to enforce a democratic system. Until the
international community appreciates the point made by Boutros-Ghali, promoting
democracy by war or otherwise will continue to generate resistance.
1. See Bruce Russett and John Oneal, Triangulating
Peace: Democracy, Interdependence and International Organizations (WW
Norton, 2001).
|
|
