Democracy

The end of the Cold War was proclaimed as the victory of democracy over communism. But democracy has not always been seen as superior to authoritarianism. Writing in 1942, Quincy Wright blamed the isolation and appeasement policies of democratic governments for the two World Wars.

Democracy has stimulated the will of the people to eliminate war, although it has not yet enlightened their intelligence as to the means.¹²

In the wake of the Cold War, much of Wright's reasoning is again relevant to the role of democracies in a violent world. The inability of democracies and their international organizations, such as NATO and the UN, to deal with contemporary violence and aggression, such as that in Bosnia, could again lead to wider wars. Ironically, it is a democratic principle - self-determination - that feeds this violence. The demise of democracy?

The English statesman Edmund Burke once warned Americans that they would ultimately forge their own shackles. Troubling trends in the US indicate that Americans may be doing just that. But the malaise of democracy is not limited to the US.

Three criteria have been postulated for the demise of democracy around the world: historical dislocation, disaffection with all political leadership, and skepticism about social progress. There has been a tendency for emerging democracies, especially those with an authoritarian past, to disintegrate into tribal, ethnic, and religious conflict when petty despots appeal to intolerance, fear, and hate to mobilize support for violence. That violence, termed by Charles Maier as territorial populism, can evolve into ethnic cleansing. To counter such violence Maier recommends that governments promote democracy beyond borders through coalition-building.¹³ Individual vs group rights

Civil war can result when groups put territorial, tribal, ethnic, racial, or religious loyalties ahead of national loyalties.

A stable democracy must balance the rights of groups to self-determination with the protection of individual rights. Unless minority rights are protected by law, democracy can lapse into a tyranny of the majority. This has been evident in theocracies that have eliminated individual rights with unyielding religious law.¹⁴ Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait could become fundamentalist Islamic republics like Iran and Sudan if their majorities were allowed to choose their political future.¹⁵

Western democracies have prevented violent polarization through a careful balance between the rights of individuals and the collective rights of society as a whole. The US Constitution provides that balance: the Bill of Rights defines fundamental individual rights and the Fourteenth Amendment strengthens individual rights by guaranteeing to everyone 'equal protection of the laws'. This goal of the Constitution is represented by the scales of justice and proclaimed on the portico of the Supreme Court: Equal Justice Under Law.

Over the years individual rights have been expanded by civil rights laws that have prohibited discrimination based on race, ethnic origin or religious beliefs. But a subtle change has occurred that has significant implications for the future: civil rights laws have shifted their focus from protecting individual rights to protecting the rights of designated classes or groups, including ethnic and racial minorities. Rather than moderating ethnic and racial differences, such laws have exacerbated them.

Special interest groups have been successful in obtaining civil rights legislation that gives them special protection, and in some cases special preferences as compensation for past inequities (for example, Native Americans and Blacks). The shift in civil rights legislation from individual to group rights is one of the troubling trends mentioned in Chapter 2, and reflects political polarization along racial and ethnic lines.

The ultimate right of any group within a society is self-determination. The right to dissolve an existing political union is a fundamental principle of democracy, but one often associated with violence. Since the American Revolution the concept of self-determination has represented freedom and individual rights to Americans, but for demagogues in former communist regimes it has provided a rationale to destroy old unions and legitimize ethnic cleansing.

There is an irony here: during the Cold War the West promoted the individual values of democracy over the collective values of communism. But despite the victory of democracy over communism that ideal has been subverted. In former communist countries such as Bosnia violent self-determination has come at the expense of human rights; and in others the dark side of democracy - liberty turned to license - has many supporting the return of authoritarianism to restore law and order.

There is considerable inconsistency, if not hypocrisy, in the US quickly recognizing the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. It is true that the American Revolution was a violent act of self-determination, but the War Between the States reversed US policy on self-determination. The attempt of the southern states to secede from the Union was similar to the declaration of independence of the 13 original states; but President Lincoln condemned such self-determination, pronounced the Union to be sacrosanct, and committed US military force to preserve it at all costs. After more than 600,000 deaths the prohibition against self-determination was written in American blood.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia has also been associated with bloody conflict.

The war on genocide should, at a minimum, mean that those who commit genocide - and are formally indicted for the crime - shall never rest, that they shall enjoy neither immunity nor protection. They should have the legal status of outlaws, subject to seizure, just as pirates were for centuries. Their properties and financial assets should be frozen everywhere.¹⁷

International enforcement of fundamental human rights could discourage ethnic and religious minorities from resorting to civil war to establish their independence. A generic bill of rights for emerging democracies would be an even better deterrent. Once individual rights and political redress are embedded in the fabric of government, disenchanted minority groups are not likely to resort to violent self-determination.¹⁸ Self-determination as a domestic threat

While current attention is focused on overseas violence, the US cannot overlook its own troubling trends which are summarized in Chapter 2. These trends could develop into serious threats if polarization continues and ethnic, racial or religious groups begin to coalesce and advocate self-determination. The fact that some already refer to themselves as black nationalists is cause for concern.

Self-determination should be discouraged in the US to promote peace and stability. If political sub-divisions such as cities, counties or states should ever become racial, ethnic or religious enclaves, the result could be as destructive of the national fabric as was secession. Such a scenario is conceivable in the US: the proliferation of racially defined single-member legislative districts and the polarization of partisan politics along racial lines could lead in that direction.

The best way to discourage racial and ethnic groups from seeking independent political enclaves is to abandon the concept of group rights and political districts for racial and ethnic minorities. A return to individual rights balanced against the collective rights of the state is the best insurance of equal justice under law, a guiding principle of US democracy that should not be confused with the right to be made equal by the law.

The two objectives of minimizing discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities and discouraging self-determination require rebuilding coalitions among increasingly adversarial special interest groups. History has taught that assimilation, not polarization, is the best route to justice for ethnic minorities in America.¹⁹ Stillborn democracy

There is another threat to democracy found in societies with a tradition of ruling elites. In Africa and Haiti opportunities for democracy have been stillborn because populations have been unable or unwilling to resist militant ruling elites. Post-colonial experiments with democracy in Africa have evolved from autocracy to anarchy. Haiti is unique in that it does not have tribal loyalties to complicate matters, but even the dramatic return of President Aristide under the protection of US forces is no guarantee of lasting democracy there.

Military intervention to establish democracy is impractical when a population is unwilling or unable to assume the responsibilities of self-government, which includes defending democracy against internal as well as external threats. The US military intervened in Haiti in 1915 and remained for 19 years with little effect. European powers had similar experiences in Africa. As the US recently learned in Somalia, unless a population assumes the responsibilities for self-rule military intervention is not likely to promote democracy but instead be perceived as neo-colonialism. Whether the 1994 intervention in Haiti is counted a success or failure will depend upon whether the Haitian people assume the responsibilities of defending democracy, human rights and the rule of law against those who will certainly challenge these values after the multinational forces leave.