Hard or Soft? Promoting Democracy Abroad
Late in his presidency, George W. Bush was heavily criticized for his “democratizing” foreign agenda. For many, this resentment was a result of his unilateral tactics and suspected motivation (read: oil) rather than his stated goal. But despite the argument of cultural relativists, democracy is a good thing. As Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones that have been tried from time to time.” So how can we promote increased acceptance of democratic ideals? Many politicians believe public condemnations, economic sanctions, and harsher punishments will do the trick. While such measures may help to ensure US national security, these measures can also help to entrench dictatorial domestic power hostile to the US. The US should take a less direct approach to harness burgeoning democracies.
US politicians often impose sanctions in the hope of securing US security. Iranian sanctions, for example, are geared toward halting the country’s nuclear weapons program. Such measures do increase the stakes of continued nuclear development (especially in combination with the threat of invasion). President Obama’s electoral vulnerability and the GOP’s hawkish tendencies also make this threat more credible. On the neutralization of nuclear programs, US policymakers can point to recent successes. After the first Gulf War, sanctions helped to neutralize Saddam Hussein’s nuclear and chemical weapons programs—notwithstanding subsequent justifications for the 2003 invasion. Sanctions also convinced another Arab pariah, Muammar Qaddafi, to give up his nuclear ambitions. However, without war, both leaders remained in power. Sanctions and condemnations can help protect US security, but this does not answer the fundamentally different question of how best to promote democracy.
Short of war—which can, at best, create flimsy, nominally democratic governments—America cannot force democratic change. This truth has been borne out with such nations as North Korea, Burma/Myanmar, and Iran. Economic sanctions and the freezing of leaders’ personal bank accounts applies pressure but also punishes whole economies and peoples, which increases instability. Often, autocratic rulers will take advantage of such conditions by painting Western leaders as the source of all societal ills, thereby tightening their grip on power. And by impoverishing the targeted nation, the US may distract from questions of political representation and induce the opposite of the intended democratizing effect. Cold War politics and the Cuban Missile Crisis resulted in a fifty-year embargo on Cuban goods, yet the Castro family has endured for eleven US presidential administrations.
Democracy must be driven from within; artificially installing governments should not be our primary goal. It rarely works as planned and imposes huge “upkeep” burdens on the American taxpayer. However, given the propensity of democratic countries not to fight one another (i.e. democratic peace theory), the US should promote democracy by other means.
The US already exerts tremendous soft power (e.g. movies, clothing, and fast food) abroad. America should play to this strength and promote educational exchanges, diplomatic engagement, and free trade. Exercising soft power will help increase wealth and spread knowledge of open political systems, nurturing nascent democracies. And as national wealth increases and basic necessities become universal, people tend to demand more political influence.
The soft power approach implies a responsibility to any resulting democratic movements. If democracy promotion is our goal, then the US should stand with protestors trying to unseat autocratic regimes. The US missed an opportunity after the summer 2009 Iranian elections, and our inaction betrayed our overriding security interests. During similar “democratic uprisings” in the future, the US should tighten the noose on autocratic regimes by publically supporting the opposition. While tardy, US action in Egypt more closely follows the desired model. Despite his relatively amicable stance toward the US and Israel, President Obama did call for Hosni Mubarak’s removal. In similar instances, as with Syria, the full weight of Western governments should spur and support protestors.
One caveat to US actions that supports the formation of new governments abroad is that the US will be unable to control the direction of new movements. Especially in light of austerity fever in Washington, the US cannot continually monitor newly created regimes. While NATO forces helped remove Gaddafi from power, the composition of the regime to replace him (democratic or otherwise) remains unclear. The US faces the same conundrum in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. These nations, relative to those of Latin America or sub-Saharan Africa, pose critical extremist threats. In these instances, rigorous cost/benefit analyses ought to determine whether international democracy should trump US security.
Sanctions and harsh words, long the political strategy to “act tough” on strongmen across the globe, may reinforce the dictators’ domestic position. While aggressive actions may prevent genocide or enhance national security, they do not necessarily promote democracy. By advocating for free trade and highlighting America’s educational system and style of government, the US can nudge foreign nationals toward democracy. Once domestic discontent with the status quo reaches a fever pitch, the US must provide more public support for regime change. In this way, we can move toward creating free and stable nations worldwide.