Democracy promotion as Realpolitik

by Henry Farrell on September 15, 2004

“Matt Yglesias”:http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/09/index.html#004032 says that there’s “no content to the Bush democracy agenda,” and that it’s “just a rhetorical flourish.” I don’t think that this is quite accurate – the real problem is that the Bush democracy agenda wasn’t intended to promote the worldwide spread of democracy as an end-goal; democracy was supposed to be an intermediate means towards a fix for America’s security problems in the Middle East. As “Josh Marshall”:http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html pointed out last year, the rationale was that democracy in Iraq would lead to the eventual creation of “a string of democratic, pro-Western governments (Turkey, Iraq, and Iran) stretching across the historical heartland of Islam.” In short, this was democracy promotion as _Realpolitik_ by other means. Thus, there’s no real inconsistency in principle with the toleration and indeed occasional encouragement of human rights abuses and autocracy in those parts of the world where US security interests wouldn’t be furthered by democratic reform. The problem, it seems to me, wasn’t so much the incoherence of the objectives (which were coherent, if wrong-headed) as the lack of any fundamental commitment to democracy _as such_, the unwillingness to use means of democracy promotion that might have had increased international legitimacy because they limited US power, and, of course, the profound and near-total incompetence with which the US pursued its goals.

{ 14 comments }

1

John Isbell 09.15.04 at 9:15 pm

““a string of democratic, pro-Western governments (Turkey, Iraq, and Iran) stretching across the historical heartland of Islam.”
I’m also looking for a fish that eats waffles.

2

glory 09.15.04 at 9:32 pm

they’re calling it realdemocratik now :D

cheers!

3

abb1 09.15.04 at 10:10 pm

This is like analyzing what a used car salesman means when he says: “customer satisfaction is our top priority”. Is it “just a rhetorical flourish”? Or is it “supposed to be an intermediate means towards a fix for” the used car salesman’s financial problems? Yeah, tough one, I think I’ll pass.

4

MQ 09.15.04 at 10:57 pm

The problem is that there is a very real contradiction between maintaining U.S. control of these countries and allowing genuine democracy. When the chips were down in Iraq the Bush administration has tended to choose maintaining control — as when we rejected Sistani’s proposals for elections last year, and rigged the transitional laws to give us continuing control of the Iraqi economy military. I think the priority in Iraq has fairly clearly been U.S. control, with “democracy” viewed very much as useful tactic to gain legitimacy for U.S. occupation.

5

Cryptic Ned 09.16.04 at 12:39 am

It was what, forty years ago, that “democracy” was redefined as “supporting the U.S. government”? Back then, of course, it was in opposition to “communism”, or “supporting the Soviet government”. Now, with nothing for it to be in opposition to, the concept of “democracy” obviously has no reason to contain any content related to the structure of a political or social system.

6

s_bethy 09.16.04 at 12:48 am

“…Realpolitik by other means…no real inconsistency in principle with the toleration and indeed occasional encouragement of human rights abuses and autocracy…the lack of any fundamental commitment to democracy as such

In the context of another American ‘war of choice’, H.D. Thoreau said “Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man’s real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now.”

The Cold War inured us to this repugnant species of Realpolitik, but it did nothing to stanch the wound.

7

epistemology 09.16.04 at 2:14 am

Bush policy isn’t a new version of Realpolitik, isn’t democracy promotion, it is bolder than that: it is reelect Bush. Everything is clearly seen the a domestic policy prism. No appeasement? Then pull troops out of Saudi Arabia as bin Laden demanded, and Falluja to minimize the domestic (US) fallout, etc. There is no consistent thread here except rolling out products that Rove thinks are going to play well with the American electorate.
Diehard pro-lifer: Approve just enough stem cell lines to be able to say you weren’t choking off the science, but not enough to keep the researchers from screaming. Very cynical. Suckers, you fell for it analyzing it as if there were some honest policy being promoted.

8

Jim Harrison 09.16.04 at 3:17 am

Democracy is just a slogan for the administration, but it is also just a slogan for lots of intellectuals these days. Serious defenders of popular sovereignty are mighty thin on the ground just now.

9

ruralsaturday 09.16.04 at 7:34 am

The trope that there’s an unchanging constant in the human endeavor, that what we are is always what we are, has led to this cynical disregard for the demos by the very people who vocally champion “democracy”.
People change, “the” people change, in trait and essence. The struggle for control of that process of change is what we’re immersed in now.
But for the Republican Party as constituted “democracy” is no more than a vocable, a war cry, right up there with “boolah boolah” and “Banzai!” and “Oh my God!”.
Pixels are good analogous bits for that human construct. Get rid of all the blue-collar pixels and the face of democracy in the US alters greatly. Get rid of the gadflies and the radicals and the basic picture won’t change at all.
The fundamentalists recognized this struggle for what it is early on – life and death, natural selection in action.
Ironic that one of their polar issues is Darwinian evolutionary theory, even as they act it out.
There was still even recently a scornful disdain for that large and threatening body of dim zealots on the part of intellectuals generally. But as it gets more and more obvious that this is not a war of ideas, that it never was, that scorn subsides.
OK, so the neo-cons and the Christian right and the shadows behind Bush are wrong and crazy, so what?
So they have to lose by the end of the show? Who says?
I don’t think the universe is constructed on a template of Hollywood sit-com plot resolution.

10

Matthew2 09.16.04 at 10:50 am

Add to that the fact that “democracy” is a very flexible word, and in the mouth of the Bush admin it’s meant as western-aligned, liberal freeish economy. No muslim laws even if a majority of people vote for them.

Nice comment abb1!

11

raj 09.16.04 at 1:15 pm

Ah, a domino theory regarding democracy–whatever that means. The domino theory was kind of silly as regards communism, and it’s just as silly as regards democracy–whatever “democracy” means.

12

dan 09.16.04 at 3:51 pm

Money.

13

son volt 09.16.04 at 6:30 pm

Perhaps it is true, as Henry argues, that a coherent foreign policy can be imagined which would pursue democracy in some countries but be indifferent or even hostile to the liberalization of other countries.

But it is not true that a coherent foreign policy can be imagined which would pursue democracy in Iraq, but be indifferent to a revanche in Russia, since the reasons for desiring democracy in Iraq are not merely equally true for Russia, but considerably more so. And this I take to have been MY’s point (and Kagan’s).

14

Ivan Weinel 09.17.04 at 2:01 am

I think that we are there for the oil. The Israelis are a tangential issue; we never gave a damn about a single jew on the face of the earth, and as a corporate body, the US still does not in fact do anything that benefits the people of Israel if there is a ghost of a chance that it would redound to our detriment. They are our aircraft carrier on land, and our strong right arm as we follow the path laid out in the “Carter Doctrine” – those heathen bastards may be standing on that sand, but the oil belongs to us. Our policies have always and avowedly aimed at preventing any potential rivals from diminishing in any way our discretion in disposing of this gunk that is the lifeblood of what we lightly refer to as “our civilization”. Thirty years ago, OPEC was able to organize and to manipulate the conditions of our access so as to finally make a buck or two, and boy, were we pissed! But if you destroy Iraqi society along with its physical infrastructure, abolish all existing mechanisms for social maintenance (army; police; utilities; legal system; education; public health), and then put the rest up for sale to the highest (foreign) bidders, you can remove the 3rd-largest producer from the cartel, and so destroy it utterly.

That’s what this is about: OPEC, R.I.P. 1973-2003. What is the most telling fact on the ground in light of this interpretation? The neocon gang that can’t shoot straight is so blitheringly inept that THEY CAN’T EVEN MANAGE TO STEAL THE OIL. Two invasions separated by a 12-yr. period of occupation, no army, no clean water or AC, and these hapless jackmeats can’t steal the oil. What ARE we paying them for, anyway?

Comments on this entry are closed.