Western powers have the power to influence affairs, but perhaps not the will. Is it time to put pressure on the house of Saud to allow democracy in their country?
What reason would the Western powers want to put pressure on the house of Saud to allow democracy in their country? Seriously. This could possibly undermine political stabilty in Saudi Arabia, which if that happened could interrupt oil flowing out of that country. That would be a Bad Thing for the Western powers.
Haven’t you heard? Because Freedom is on the march!
We’ve had threads on this before. One problem is that there is no significant democracy movement in SA. There’s opposition to the House of Saud – but mainly from Wahhabi religious fanatics who regard the Sauds as too corrupt and impious (even though the Sauds established, and have maintained, Wahhabi Islam as the kingdom’s official religion and ideology). We certainly wouldn’t want to encourage rebellion by them. The Sauds are just now beginning to experiment with allowing elections for municipal governments. That could signal the beginning of a process by which democracy might, very gradually, evolve in SA. The best thing the West can do is stand back and let that process work, while offering occasional and very gentle encouragement to speed it along.
Nor would the US want to see the Wahhabi religious fanatics get more power democratically. The US wouldn’t want to see SA become another Iran. And as the country that Mecca and Medina are located in, I should think the implications of political instability in SA could have on the Islamic world as a Bad Thing. Particularly if arm twisting of the House of Saud were seen by Muslims as causing political chaos in the country that Mecca and Medina are located in. Best to let the Saudis deal with this without outside pressure.
Well there is a lot of pros and cons.
Pro is of course it is America’s Mission in the world to spread democracy. We like our form of government and honestly think other people should have it too.
Con is the philosophical argument that if a country wants to have an absolute monarchy that is their business. If the Saudis seem to like stoning adulterers to death that is their business too.
On a more practical matter of realpolitik, we have to remember that ‘one man, one vote’ could easily become ‘one man, one vote, one time.’ Further the simple fact is the Ruling Class here is willing to tolerate the West. The People are less likely to.
A representative government here would wage endless war upon the West. On the other hand, we like the idea of representative government.
But what does it mean to say that the “country wants” an absolute monarchy? Certainly the House of Saud wants it, and everybody else is used to it. But in the absence of elections, how can we know what the people would really choose if offered an alternative? And even stating the problem that way raises the contentious question of how to define “the people” in a country where 26% of the population are resident foreigners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Saudi_Arabia Should it matter what kind of government they want, or not?
You have good questions. I have no good answers.
The problem with all this myopic NeoConservative talk of instilling democracy where it does not yet exist is that two questions invariably go missing:[list[li]Why exactly is democracy not there already?[/li][li]Can one guarantee that the people will be better off with it?[/list][/li]
Democracy is the least worst system of government, and I consider myself lucky to have been born under it. But democracy is itself only realistic when certain other developmental criteria have been met. In particular, the population must have advanced educationally to the point where they can tell the difference between true and false democracy.
If there is still a widespread sectarian, tribal or “them and us” attitude, each faction will simply view democracy as a means to dominate rather than govern (to represent themselves rather than all in Mill’s parlance), and the dread spectre of instability and civil war will rise where some other non-democratic system might have kept it suppressed until that magic educational threshold had been reached.
The best weapons democracy has against monarchy or dictatorship are not threats and sanctions, but radio waves and internet connections. The BBC World Service does as much to promote and ultimately acheive democracy as aggression and ‘pressure’ ever will.
SM, you may be right, but is this not simply a well-reasoned and well-written version of “Them there people are incapable of self-government?”
Absolutely.
Remember how the Polish Trade Union protests, combined with information flowing into the Soviet Union led to a peaceful change of Government.
As for the NeoConservatives, they’re not myopic. They know there’s oil in Saudi Arabia. :rolleyes:
If they were bothered about democracy, they’d invade Burma.
Someone should tell Bush that the military there overthrew the democratically elected Government.
Not that he’d be interested.
As Mill’s Chapter 7 describes, ‘self-government’ is not necessarily equivalent to ‘representative democracy’. I would paraphrase your version thus: “Them there people are capable of self-government, but not yet capable of representative democracy”.
If this is agreed, we must ask whether a transition to flawed democracy is any better than the current situation, given the inherent risk of instability and civil war.
If I’m not mistaken, there are only two countries in the world where democracy has succesfully been forced on a country through outside force: Germany and Japan.
Here’s an article from the Atlantic Monthly that deals in SA and current issues. Read it and be afraid. Be very afraid.
TheGaspode
An very good article. Gives an excellent observation.
It always amazed me that all of this seems to be out of focus in the “general thinking” in the USA. Especially since crying about “democracy” (lately it is “bringing democracy”) is so high on the list of the US government’s rethoric when it comes to other nations (I don’t agree with the author’s - mild - suggestion that Bandur was on some sort of a sideline during the Clinton administration).
The US is so good at painting the shortcomings of “evil dictatorships” when it is of political/economical convenience to do so.
Except Saudi Arabia where the rape of Islam by means of the Wahhabi doctrine to further polical goals - and to export this dangerous doctrine - is among the most blatant and striking examples of such activities in Modern Times. Sheltered under the Ignoring US Umbrella.
And not to forget: The whole region is a vulcano ready to explode. That is what I would describe as a “domino effect” waiting to happen.
Salaam. A
You may be correct. As a juxtapose to those examples, and that of Iraq, it would be an uplifting message if a nation as important as Saudi Arabia could be encouraged to embrace democracy without a shot being fired.
Thankyou for that cite! I can’t believe that I’ve been so ignorant of how serious situation is there. And nevermind just there. The fall of the Soviet Union will be nothing compared to when the corrupt House of Saud falls.
Technically democracy was restored in Germany.
So that leaves one country which has had democracy introduced by foreigners. And that took atomic bombs…
Great article from THE NEW YORKER from January by Lawrence Wright. Sorry about the small print and all.
Something’s gotta give, but I honestly don’t know what will happen there. And if more moderate Muslims sometimes wonder why their voices aren’t heard as much in the West, well, we’re trying to listen, but y’all can get drowned out.
Wow, I didn’t know Atomic bombs could transport themselves all the way from Japan to Germany.
Moderator’s Note: Ryan_Liam, I don’t know if you just completely misread what was posted, but deliberately misquoting another poster is against the rules.
It’s quite clear to me at least that the reference to “atomic bombs” in the post you quoted is to Japan: