The new U.S. administration is likely to downplay, but not downgrade democracy as a foreign policy imperative. President Barack Obama is unlikely to be as vocal in highlighting democracy as a leading policy objective, and he has demonstrably pragmatic, realist instincts.
But he also has a conviction that democracy is closely intertwined with economic, security and other strategic interests. In any event, every recent president has been forced by events to promote democracy irrespective of their initial intent.
These were some of the insights gleaned from a discussion on the Obama administration’s approach to democracy promotion at the Carnegie Endowment. Carnegie’s Thomas Carothers envisaged a “complex repositioning” rather than a retreat from a democracy agenda. There was in any case no need for a broad realist corrective because George W. Bush’s Freedom Agenda had been more rhetorical than rooted in a sustained commitment to confronting authoritarian regimes, particularly where such regimes were deemed to be allies in the war on terror.
The main challenges to democracy assistance are in states that do not confirm to the transitional paradigm in which practitioners have developed their programs and approaches: in authoritarian states which fiercely resist change; in hybrid regimes which have been able to absorb democracy assistance initiatives; and in fragile states where democracy assistance was struggling to gain traction.
George W. Bush had “admirable moral clarity” but no moral authority, said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. Obama has “tremendous moral authority” but there will be powerful voices inside the administration with seductive arguments for downgrading democracy.
The aftermath of the 2007 Kenya elections had a profound personal impact on Obama, Malinowski noted. But he has been scathing about the utility of short-term trade-offs with the likes of General Pervez Musharraf, and is open to persuasion that democracy and human rights advocates are the true realists.
The appointment of Charles Freeman as head of the National Intelligence Council was “not a concern”, said Malinowski. When it comes to internal policy fights, “we’ll debate him – and win”. Carothers was also sanguine about Freeman’s appointment on the grounds that the NIC was not the central repository of policy-making on democracy and human rights issues, and because every administration needs a diversity of views.
It would be painfully ironic if the administration reacted to the adverse aspects of the Bush administration’s legacy by reducing its commitment to democracy, said Robert Kagan, when it is already on the defensive. An energetic commitment to promoting democracy would be the “non-Bush thing to do” since the previous administration pursued a “consistently realist” strategy, including “in the most egregious way” in Russia and China.
There is “no non-geo-political democracy promotion”, Kagan argued. Supporting democracy in Ukraine is perceived as a threat by the Kremlin. It is of enormous strategic significance to the United States to have democracy in China and Russia.
As for restoring US credibility, actions speak louder than words. Just as Filipinos were incredulous that the US would withdraw support for Marcos until it did, so the Arab world will never believe that the US is serious about democracy until it stops supporting the region’s autocrats.
Kagan is resigned to Islamists coming to power through elections as a consequence of democracy providing an outlet for the non-violent expression of resentments. “But perhaps this phase is as unavoidable as the present conflict, and the sooner it is begun, the sooner a new phase can take its place,” he writes.
Recent Comments