Where does the thinking come from that wide-spread democracy will put an end to terrorism?
To hear Bush speak, it is clear that the solution to the War on Terror is “freedom” and “liberty”. This leads the audience to conclude that terrorists are who they are because they lack “freedom” and “liberty”. We can only assume that the “freedom” and “liberty” of which Bush speaks can only spring out of a democracy likes ours–one that holds certain truths self-evident, and you know the rest.
Now this reasoning (perhaps) is intuitive when it comes to localized terrorism. One can easily imagine that a man, fed up with his living conditions and position in society, will choose to speak out with violence if he is not given the opportunity to enact change by voting or lobbying. However, when it comes to international terrorism, the link between political freedom and terrorism becomes harder to discern. Looking at 9/11, I fail to see how that event would have been prevented if the terrorists had come from a freedom lovin’ democracy as opposed to a monarchial theocracy. Looking at the North Ireland conflict with England, it becomes even less obvious how democratic rule is the antidote to terrorism.
And looking at the US, the link between democracy and terrorism is even more tenous. Now I’m not saying we’re the worst nation on the planet when it comes to political-based violence, but we can hardly hold ourselves up as an example of how “freedom” and “liberty” is an anathema to terrorism among our own citizenry. Does anyone remember Timothy McVeigh, Erik Rudolph, Ted Kazinski, and the rash of attacks against abortion clinics? How can we explain the existence of American terrorists, if Bush’s rhetoric holds the answer?
Well, the idea in Bush Admin’s head is apparently that democratic nations will be friendly towards us and thus prevent terrorists from operating within their borders. shrugs
R J Rummel has written alot about democracy and how it supposedly increases wealth and decreases violence.
A part of the terrorist motivation comes from domestic oppression and lack of good economic options for terrorists. If you have a bad boss you can’t get mad at him so you go home and get mad at your wife and kids, it happens all the time. Arguably the same holds true internationally, if the people in Saudi Arabia or Palestine are pissed about their 50% unemployment rates, governmental oppression & corruption and cannot get mad at their leaders w/o risking death they can take it out on the US the same way someone who is mad at their boss cannot take it out on him so he finds someone else to yell at. Democracy would help redirect some of that anger back at their own domestic government.
Also if RJ rummel is right then democracy promotes more economic growth, which would be good for terrorist nations because better jobs would make people less likely to want to become radicalized fundamentalists. Religious fundamentalism and personal strife seem to be linked from what I have seen in my life, the people who turn to fundamentalism are more often than not desperate in some way.
None of this would cure terrorism, but it would help cut it down.
I would say that a strong and stable democracy makes it much more difficult for an international terror organization to form up. But then, a strong and stable government of any kind makes it more difficult. Its when there are weak governments and unstable regions that sows the seeds of international terrorism IMO. Its not necessarily poverty…but instability that breeds terrorism.
That said, of COURSE the US is going to want to propagate Democracy as a government in unstable regions. And I think stability is the key. Personally of course I think Democracy is superior anyway.
But we have not always done that, have we? In some cases because a democratic government in a foreign country might not choose to serve U.S. interests (as in Iran and Chile – and the Philippines, and El Salvador, Honduras, etc., etc.), but also because democratic government does not always lead to stability. The Communist regime in Yugoslavia was succeeded by regimes that, at least by comparison, were democratic – and look what happened next.
No BG we haven’t…because sometimes it was in our best nation interest to support counties that were distasteful to achieve some national goal. But over all the US would LIKE to have Democracies over other forms of government if they can get it. Its only natural.
Certainly Democracy doesn’t automatically convey stability…especially when Democracy comes too soon for a country and isn’t supported strongly with funds and international support. Germany and Japan succeeded because the US poured money into them after the war as well as provided other support. Many Democracies failed because of lack of support…or because of cold war manuvering by one side or the other.
So far it looks like we are working off some hunches. I will dissect them.
Wesley Clark
I agree that this is probably the root cause of terrorism. I’m not sure, however, that democracy necessarily translates into a thriving free market economy and egalitarianism. India, afterall, is a democracy, yet the country is characterized by poverty and a not-so-pretty caste system.
Wesley Clark
Religious fundamentalist are alive and well in the U.S., which has one of the highest standards of living in the world. True, these folks are more likely to be low on the socio-economic totem pole, but as Election 2004 showed, as a block they are large and vocal enough to exert significant political sway. So based on this observation, I have little confidence that democracy will “secularize” a nation that, for instance, is so entrenched in Islam that there is little difference between the Koran and the law books.
xtisme
I would say that a strong and stable democracy makes it much more difficult for an international terror organization to form up. But then, a strong and stable government of any kind makes it more difficult. Its when there are weak governments and unstable regions that sows the seeds of international terrorism IMO. Its not necessarily poverty…but instability that breeds terrorism.
[/quote]
Regardless of strength, a dictatorship will be more stable than a democracy, if only because most democratic leaders serve relatively short terms when compared with the life-long reigns of a dictator. I can only see that instability being amplified in a country that is mired in ethnic conflict. With each election, each faction is going to attempt to wrestle power from the others. Will these attempts be peaceful? Who knows? At least with a dictator, the question of “Whose the prez going to be?” is moot.
Regardless of strength, a dictatorship will be more stable than a democracy, if only because most democratic leaders serve relatively short terms when compared with the life-long reigns of a dictator. I can only see that instability being amplified in a country that is mired in ethnic conflict. With each election, each faction is going to attempt to wrestle power from the others. Will these attempts be peaceful? Who knows? At least with a dictator, the question of “Whose the prez going to be?” is moot.
Whats the point in staving off the inevitable anyway, these ethnic conflicts are bound to occur sooner or later, they’re better off being resolved quickly rather than waiting for the ‘leader to die’ the thing with Democracies is that many forms of government can be experimented with, and it isnt a ‘all eggs in one basket’ scenario like a dictator.
The Contras were rebelling against an unelected revolutionary government. They stopped fighting after the Sandinistas held a free election and peacefully accepted the verdict which removed them from power. If the Sandinistas had won the election, maybe the Contras would have continued fighting, but there’s no way we can know, is there?
You could make a case for that, but it has nothing to do with xtisme’s point that demcracy promotes “stability.”
A root cause of terrorism. It is also possible that in a more-or-less free and prosperous country, some people will still resort to terrorism for religious or ideological reasons – e.g., the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and Timothy McVeigh.
Latin America is a good example of how democracies can bring stability but not prosperity… and other examples of how democracies can go wrong. Colombia is nominally a democracy and there is the huge FARC movement from former ages.
Europe had lots of leftist terrorist movements in the past and IRA too. Good police work did them in as much as the end of all things soviet.
( Do notice how Democracy is mentioned but in fact some are capitalism’s benefits that are stated ? (I have a thread about this)
Overall Bush is selling an idea without going into the dirty details… he doesn’t really care for freedom… or think its that important.
“National interest.” See xtisme’s post #8 above. :rolleyes:
There are several countries in LA which were formerly dictatorships and recently became democracies. Would you say they are more or less prosperous under democracy than they were under dictatorship? And in either case, is the economic change attributable to the change in government, or to other causes?
Well, we can look at what happened in 1984, when the Sandinistas were returned to power in a free and fair election (that was the conclusion of the many international observers who were present). Obviously, the Contras didn’t stop fighting.
The IRA were not Soviet-sponsored, and “good police work” had virtually nil to do with their decision to go on ceasefire 10 years ago.
Brazil’s last dictatorship actually started quite well economically speaking. We had a massive economic boom we called “The Brazilian Miracle”. It was fueled by debt and massive infrastructure programs though. Eventually of course the economics and the dictatorship started to stink. The debt made the country’s economy crash totally.
I’d say that our democracy is in part responsible for bad economic practices due to an emphasis in distrubuting pork barrel in exchange for political support. Some reforms that are badly needed just don’t happen because politicians fear losing popular or corporate support for example. Corruption is endemic just like it was before democracy… as is bad governance. I’d say we were are a bit better off due to democracy… but economically speaking its very very small.
Other Latin American countries I think didn't change much due to democracy... especially since business always had a strong influence in or out of democracy. Chile has grown a lot... but then their dictator wasn't as corrupt (money wise) as others.
Still what I mean to say is that Democracy isn't some kind of holy grail of prosperity even in relatively stable countries like in Latin America. When you speak of "prosperity" IMO it should be a reference to capitalism.
