Is Democracy Always the Answer?

What if 'The People' Don't Want Democracy?

This is a rather interesting Op-Ed regarding social attitudes towards democracy in various parts of the world. I really liked the principle that the article was attempting to articulate, even if I have qualms about the way it is written and the tone used.

The author clearly has a bias, and it's proudly on display in the piece (as well as in some of the flawed conclusions they come to with the polling data), but it illuminates a concept that I've had rolling around in my head for some time: is democracy always the perfect solution to ailing societies?

I've debated this with peers regarding the West's decade-long quagmire in Afghanistan before, and found myself on the same side of the argument that the author uses here. The primary argument is essentially that the West, in general, puts entirely too much focus on democracy, often touting it as a cure-all for every broken state and a miracle solution for all instability around the world, to the detriment of its own ideals and the well-being of the state or society in question. I think that we in the West, with our advanced economies; established, entrenched democracies; and generally stable societies, often over-emphasize the importance of democracy in other parts of the world, to a degree where I think we're blinded to what is actually needed in the country. I think that the polling data reflects that, and I also think that nowhere on earth is that more beautifully illustrated than in Afghanistan.

It's unsurprising that a good amount of people in developing countries regard democracy with an apathetic attitude. The telling part of the polling data, the most illuminating and also the part that the author seems to dismiss, is that the places where unequivocal and unqualified approval of democracy is lowest is also the places that are poorest, and places that are the most unstable. In all societies and all political constructs, I believe that people desire two things, primarily: economic prosperity and stability. I think that these two concerns trump freedom, equality, political participation, and even human rights in some cases. It's unsurprising that the two are intertwined. One finds that in the vast majority of cases, states that are the poorest tend to be the most unstable, and vice-versa, and that economic activity and social stability are two-sides of the same proverbial coin.

I think that when you dig down to the crux of society vis-a-vis political systems (and in many of these countries, one is talking about war ravaged and ethnic strife-ridden societies where they are, quite literally, the barest form of society) we find that people crave stability more than anything, and in virtually all cases, a strong ruler who is capable of maintaining stability is preferable to a messy and cumbersome democracy. This is particularly true when that democracy is of questionable legitimacy to some sects of the populace and doesn't have the strength to extend it's rule of law over the most unstable parts of the country. We see this in Somalia, we see it in Pakistan, and we see it in Libya and Egypt now. What good is democracy if they can't control the population and maintain the stability that is necessary for life to take on some semblance of normalcy?

It should come as no surprise that economic prosperity is a direct consequence of internal stability, just as instability is more often than not a direct or indirect consequence of economic destitution. A strong ruler that can maintain order and kick-start an economy is going to be significantly more popular than a democracy that can't maintain order and thus, can't promote economic activity. We've seen this before: Tunisia is a sterling example. Decades of authoritarian rule resulted in one of the most stable, economically prosperous countries in Northern Africa and the wider Arab world. Thanks to our (the West's) willingness to support authoritarian rulers if it served our interests, Ben Ali made the right friends, cut the right deals, and for a time, enjoyed significant economic dividends that stabilized the country.

Of course, as time goes on, these rulers become corrupt and more oligarchic. And thus, when a population has achieved a relative stability and measure of financial success, they begin to concern themselves with things like political participation. Once an individual has empowered himself through his financial status, suddenly the things his rulers do start to matter to him. Suddenly he is much more concerned with what his leaders do, and will demand accountability, transparency, and good governance. And that's when the population will focus on political change. Sometimes it's peaceful, many times it's not. Either way, it happens in due time.

There is an old saying that "dictatorships are great at building nations; democracies are best at running them."  A certain level of political maturity is required for an effective democracy, and it is worth considering this frame of reference when dealing with some of the most troubled states in the world. Democracy is the prevailing system not because the victorious democratic powers imposed it on the world, but because all else being equal, it's the best political system we've been able to come up with. Unfortunately, however, all things are not always equal, and when push comes to shove, good governance is preferable to amateur democracy. That will come in time, as it did in the West not all that long ago.