Pasbanan-  Raber Talaat

  • INTRODUCTIONS

What all theories of democracy focus to the simple point are that Democracy not imported from outside. Democracy built on institutions within countries, and those who make Democracy are usually intellectuals and leaders. If people need a democracy; that is the responsibility of the intellectuals.  Waiting for American or the European to establish democracy in developing countries, means that elites and political leaders are incapable of this role.

Why has it proven so difficult to promote democracy, markets, and the rule of law in developing countries? Reformers of all layers have introduced plans to improve certain details about the world, over various regions and cultures; and each year development agencies promote plans for a broad range of countries. However, Because of the weakness of their institutions, Any transition to a post-tyranny system immediately will be confronted with the complicated legacy of totalitarian rule, however, at the same time will have to proceed with a significant caution in dismantling that legacy if violence and instability avoided. Tyrannical regimes damage civil society, the decline of tolerance, pluralism, recognition of others. Identity policy becomes a matter; people define themselves, and their vision of life not by individual decisions but through the paradigms of smaller groups. The totalitarianism is an ideology, a social movement, and a political-economic-social architecture that applies to the termination of the division of political society and civil society and the desire for complete control over the two within the design of a single collective ideology.

The post-tyranny states are closer to the natural state; the natural state treats individuals and groups differentially; those with bigger power have higher privileges and greater access to state services; those with small power may have no access to these services at all.  Accounting to this circumstances and the definition for failure states by Derick W. Brinkerhoff. The largest number of the totalitarian or post-totalitarian states are failure states. A failure state “can be characterized by; First, Breakdown of law and order where state institutions lose their monopoly on the legitimate use of force and are unable to protect their citizens, or those systems are used to oppress and terrorize citizens. Second, weak or disintegrated capacity to respond to citizens’ needs and desires, provide basic public services, assure citizens’ welfare, or support normal economic activity; and, at the international level, Third, lack of a credible entity that represents the state beyond its borders” [1]

Transplanting democracy is complicated and uncertain. However, there is hope that those who want to export democracy do success. In this case, assuming, that exporting democracy through a military intervention is effective, would this then justify its demand?  Nevertheless, within the absence of a specific resistance or some further manifestation that shows the big interest of people in freedom and a regime change. Why should the people of a democratic country risk their lives to introduce democracies in a dictatorial country when the people of the latter are not ready to risk their lives for the same purpose? Can a single government decide which governments are or are not legitimate? The features of liberal democracy; protection of liberties, the certainty of civic rights, the rule of law. However, those characteristics where the foundations are not already in place that supposed to become Democratic; is the underlying problem of trying to export democracy. Why a World Democratic Powers have to give voice to political oppositions in non-democratic countries that are internally repressed, thus providing representation also to those people that should ultimately benefit from importing democracy. [2]

“Freedom,” itself, as a word indicating a full political faith, should have only possibly comparable meanings for different political systems. It must point out also that this term can have various purposes and different meanings at different periods in the history, what is indeed more impressive, it may have different meanings at the same time in the same system under different circumstances and for different people. Therefore; struggling for freedom must start first; as an individual interest and later as a public demand of the society. [3]

This article is built up of some assumptions that written to explain the following question;”Is there a possibility to establish or transplant democracy in a totalitarian country ?” This article maintains as follows; The Democratic transition includes three features: nation-rebuilding (based on inclusion and equitability), state formation ( reforming and restructuring), and stabilization (law and order). These processes can conceptualize of in the strategic structure of democratization and power distribution.

The resolution of a conflict is likely to come through the installation of a democratic, pluralistic, federal, with checks and balances and broader participation. Besides, this essay tries to put forward several views and assuming on this, such as; First. The transition to democracy becomes easy if a state was weak in front of society.  Second. Required middle classes.  Third. If there is a democratic culture, the transition to democracy will be possible. The fourth method refers to the economy.

THE CURIOS CASE OF IRAQ

Historically, Iraq was a regional state in search for nationhood of an agrarian society fragmented by multi-ethnicity and multi-religious society. Iraq has never succeeded with the process of Nation building. The state always run by a small monopolist group with practice broad discriminations against the rest of Iraqi identities, and there was no meaningful representation of other groups in political institutions except the ruling group which also involved a small number of tribes member or family within the Sunni group and Ba’ath party. [4]

With the invasion of USA in 2003, the country has divided into two directions in line with the religious and ethnic divisions, search for hidden and repressed identity, and the sectarian conflict was the most visual social and political phenomenon which identified this period of the history of Iraq.

The sectarian conflict in Iraq is a real conflict about resources; economic resources, culture resources, material and symbolic. Even if you have like a sense of ownership to some religious symbols and when those symbols violated, then you have sectarian feelings. And so and so forth, it is a real thing, and the primary cause is the failure of nation building in a pluralistic society.

  • How to govern diversity?

Govern diversity is the fundamental lesson that Iraq should learn to know to go beyond this. Because the sectarian divisions, especially the Shiite and Sunni division, have been with Iraq for forty centuries. They politicized, why they were not politicized like before thirty years ago, fifty years ago. However, a necessary question, why they are not only politicized but militarized across the region?

The Majority of the Iraqi people and groups have influenced by their religion background and Sectarian identity and doctrines. Here has resulted in the underdevelopment of individualism and empowering of the ethnic and religious conflict. The new political structure after 2003 started to support the identity politic and discourse, they involved to the political process of the post-Ba’ath system in the name of ethnic and religious identities, and they built their strategy and policy according to the identity of groups and sectarianism. People started to define themselves and their outlook on life, not through individualism and rational decision but by the paradigms of the groups they belong. The tribe system is still present, and political leaders have used and nourished this sensibility to mobilize their audiences. This ethnic and religious fanaticism has fueled enmity amongst different groups; namely Sunni, Shiites and the Kurds.[5]

Participation and self-governance is a rule. Wherever citizens voluntarily participate in liberal democratic institutions, they will manage to be self-sustaining. Without those values and underlying beliefs are absent, even coercion and intervention will be needed to sustain formal institutions. “Meanwhile, a host of incentive problems confronts the occupier as well as the occupied. Every public policy influenced by special interest groups, who attempt to direct benefits to their members. Therefore even if policymakers know the policies that would be beneficial to the reconstruction effort, interest groups will try to lobby the government to shift policies toward their benefits.” These mechanisms for democracy promotion can work over time to develop the art of association. However; if above mentioned are among the most important characteristics of liberal Democracy, the lack of those foundations would make a process of Democracy transplanting very challenging. [6]

  • State Failure

The state can take on broader functions without decreasing individual freedom as long as the law provides reliable, safe defenders against unreasonable authority. Democratic liberalism, since, has described not just for general social protections but also for stronger guarantees of civil liberties. Internally Iraq is in crisis, and the state is weak, it can not provide security and people’s need, practically the country has divided to more than region and power, the current political situation in Iraq is difficult, it is fragmented and disorganized.  With the current demographic and political structure, Iraq is not working. During the years of sectarian politics. The growth of identity politics created new and complex dynamics that dominated post-war transition. As a consequence of the conflict and the long history of identity politics, Iraq is practically has divided into three regions, Sunni, Shiite and Kurds.

Promoting Democracy demands a new state working according to Liberal constitutions, for instance, group balances, open discussion, periodical elections, and other institutional mechanisms to prevent state power from becoming authoritarian. However, constitutions are not purely negative in purpose or effect. They also produce a policy for the exercise of legitimate powers and a conceptual structure for politics. Unquestionably, constitutions will become the very foundation of national identity and patriotism and how an instrument for building nations as well as their states.  [7]

  • Strong Society, Weak State

Promoting liberal Democratic strategies for nation and society involves working with civil society organizations to support reform of government policies and to improve social and cultural attitudes. Eventually, however, these actions must be directed toward changing countries as well, because even when the goal is to change society and culture, effective government assistance is essential to accomplishing anything on strategic scales. Civil society should play a significant role in building pressure for democratic transition and pushing it through to completion. The capacity of civil society in bringing down authoritarian rule was fundamental in the democratic transitions in East Central Europe. One of the most significant characteristics of democracies is a strong feeling of social trust amongst citizens. Trust is required both in influencing minority groups that the elected majority will respect their rights and in helping people solve conflicts informally and even avoid conflict before it starts. Social trust is necessary to peace, and it is also, less obviously, related to market economies, enabling market actors — when combined with property rights to enter into impersonal transactions, which are crucial for the growth of enterprises.[8]

Iraq has ruled for a half of century by an authoritarian military regime, to receive a legacy from destructive wars, misrule, mismanagement, and corruption, which caused of destroying resources and civil society. Personalized institutions of power, and left a state of hyper-segmentation and crisis of identity. Ba’ath rule destroyed civil society, the party’s power eliminated all attempts that had made toward establishing a civil society. Furthermore left Iraqi society of segmentation and Crises of Identity. The violence of regime did not let other identities to grew up healthy besides the development of civil society. Which is important to recognize the others and live peacefully together, The result was a distraction of all civilian principles. Such as; tolerant, pluralism, peace, recognition the others, trust among the religious plus ethnic groups and the right of development and living.

  • THE MINIMALIST CONCEPTION OF EXPORTING DEMOCRACY

The Largest modern definitions of democracy have many essential elements. “First, democracies are countries in which there are institutional mechanisms, usually elections, that enable the people to elect their leaders. Second, prospective leaders must fight for public support. Third, the power of the government is restrained by its accountability to the people. These are the essential characteristics of political democracy.”[9] However, those minimalist conceptions challenged by individual scholars and theorists for their frustration to take into account the concentration of facade democracies in many recent transitions from authoritarian rule. “Guillermo O’Donnell, for instance, argues that the definition of democracy in terms of pluralism promotes the abuse of power and the emergence of what he calls “deliberative democracy”, “a model of regime that holds on the assumption that “whoever wins the election to the presidency is thereby allowed to govern as he or she understands proper, constrained only by the hard facts of existing power relations and by a constitutionally limited term of office.” [10]

As for Larry Diamond, he advocates liberal democracy. According to him, liberal democracy maintains many characteristics that extend beyond the formal and intermediate conceptions presented in the earlier analysis. “First, to be considered“democratic,” a country demands a democratic political system that enables citizens to choose their rulers in free and fair elections and to participate and express themselves in other political processes. Secondly, democracy requires the absence of reserved domains of power for the military or other actors not accountable to the electorate, directly or indirectly. In addition to the vertical accountability of rulers to the ruled (secured mainly through elections), it requires the horizontal accountability of officeholders to one another; this constrains executive power and so helps protect constitutionalism, legality and the deliberative process. Third, it encompasses extensive provisions for political and civic pluralism as well as for individual and group freedoms, so that contending interests and values may be expressed and compete through ongoing processes of articulation and representation, beyond periodic elections. Liberty and Pluralism, in turn, can only be secured through a “rule of law,” in which legal norms are applied fairly, consistently and predictably across equivalent cases, irrespective of the class, status or power of those subject to the rules. Under a true rule of law, all citizens have political and legal equality, and the state and its agents are themselves subject to the law.”[11]

While procedural democracy often criticized for being too unexacting from the normative perspective, it demands a lot. Real-world democracies, even the most enduring and consolidated ones, can hardly sit if the above criteria continuously. These principles grounded on equal liberty as an ultimate value that might not be fully realizable. But they also allow us to evaluate existing political systems regarding the extent to which they fulfill or approach the standard of equal liberty, and from of their “degree of democracy.” Therefore exporting Democracy especially through using a military forces can not establish a liberal Democracy, particularly in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan which there was no any foundation for Democracy.  In post-Authoritarian countries, the transition to Democracy requires more social-political and economic reform and organizations. Without an institutional change supported by a stable government, strong economy and an active civil society; Democracy in developing countries will remain only in a minimalist conception and practice.

  • CONCLUSIONS

The dynamic of Democratic transitions; through using an exporting Democracy practice in post-conflict or Authoritarian countries are fragmenting their societies to the sectarian identification, and political blocs grow bloody conflicts between the people over power and resources. Religion sectarianism and the rise of ethnic groups identity and tribalism will encourage, and their institutions and networks improved by state support and sectarian discourse. Because the foundation of normative and practical democracy are weak, Civil society is not functioning, and the state is more fragile than be able to protect citizens.

Post-Authoritarian states are experiencing internal fragmentation and conflicts, and people are living below extremely challenging situations, to find a minimal living standard and security. Democracy which exported by others or imported by them could give them a bigger opportunity to find how to fight against each other, to find more space to be determinate each other, instead of empowering them how to live together.

The European Union as a soft power can play a fundamental role in the process of the democratic transitions and peace-building in the middle east (post-Authoritarian States), as they already did and success in central eastern Europe. People and civil society in those countries need help and assistance in the conflict resolution, which is Europe has a long history and experience in the process of developing a democratic society basis on pluralism and diversity. Europeans already have different assets, and they pride themselves on their capacity to project such civilian resources, so it is time to build stronger capabilities in this domain, starting with the training of international justice and police specialists.

The European Union and any other countries and powers who are promoting for a Democracy. Can provide cooperation straight to the people through UN and other international NGO’s to improve the educations, health system, and human rights, EU has to start to work with people rather than governments, to improve the life of individuals through the capacity building, political stability, peaceful life, and society.

  • REFERENCES

  1. Brinkerhoff, Derick W., 2007, Governance in Post-Conflict Societies,by Routledge, London and New York, P2
  2. DANIELE ARCHIBUGI, CAN DEMOCRACY BE EXPORTED? https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=archibugi-exporting-democracy-widener&site=12, (Assess 03 June 2017)
  3. Leoni, Bruno. 1961. Freedom and the Law. Los Angeles: Nash Publishing. p. 37
  4. A Jabar, Faleh, 2009,Conflict in Iraq: Socio- Economic, Cultural Political Dynamics,Draft Paper for ESCWA, IIST website.
  5. Can We Export Democracy? | Cato Institute.2008.https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2008/can-we-export-democracy. Accessed; June 06, 2017
  6. Why Liberalism Works – The American Prospect. Liberalism and the Discipline of Power.http://prospect.org/article/why-liberalism-works. Accessed: June 06, 2017
  7. Strong Society, Weak State | Hoover Institution.http://www.hoover.org/research/strong-society-weak-state. Accessed: June 06, 2017
  8. Why the United States Should Spread Democracy. Sean M. Lynn-Jones. 1998. http://www.belfercenter.org/publication/why-united-states-should-spread-democracy. Accessed: June 07, 2017
  9. Anja Maren BRUNNER, 2007-2008. Exporting Democracy. Strategies and Approaches of the United States and the European Union in Transformation Countries The Case of Ukraine. Institut Européen des Hautes Études Internationales Diplôme des Hautes Études Européennes et Internationales. p. 7-8
  10. Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner. 1997. Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies. The Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore and London. p. 11

[1] Brinkerhoff, Derick W., 2007, Governance in Post-Conflict Societies,by Routledge, London and New York, P2

[2] DANIELE ARCHIBUGI, CAN DEMOCRACY BE EXPORTED? https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=archibugi-exporting-democracy-widener&site=12, (Assess 03 June 2017)

[3] Leoni, Bruno. 1961. Freedom and the Law. Los Angeles: Nash Publishing. p. 37

[4] A Jabar, Faleh, 2009,Conflict in Iraq: Socio- Economic, Cultural Political Dynamics,Draft Paper for ESCWA, IIST website.

[5] A Jabar, Faleh, 2009,Conflict in Iraq: Socio- Economic, Cultural Political Dynamics,Draft Paper for ESCWA, IIST website.

[6] Can We Export Democracy? | Cato Institute.2008.https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2008/can-we-export-democracy. Accessed; June 06, 2017

[7] Why Liberalism Works – The American Prospect. Liberalism and the Discipline of Power.http://prospect.org/article/why-liberalism-works. Accessed: June 06, 2017

[8] Strong Society, Weak State | Hoover Institution.http://www.hoover.org/research/strong-society-weak-state. Accessed: June 06, 2017

[9] Why the United States Should Spread Democracy. Sean M. Lynn-Jones. 1998. http://www.belfercenter.org/publication/why-united-states-should-spread-democracy. Accessed: June 07, 2017

[10] Anja Maren BRUNNER, 2007-2008. Exporting Democracy. Strategies and Approaches of the United States and the European Union in Transformation Countries The Case of Ukraine. Institut Européen des Hautes Études Internationales Diplôme des Hautes Études Européennes et Internationales. p. 7-8

[11] Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner. 1997. Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies. The Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore and London. p. 11

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *