Uzbekistan and the perils of Democracy
Karimov may get away with it, because there is an aspect of these now-commonplace nonviolent revolutions that is not often recognized: They do not work if the regime they are trying to overthrow is not to some extent self-deterred by its desire not to be seen as mere thugs and murderers. In particular they do not work when the regime is confident that it will not face international isolation even if it slaughters the nonviolent protesters. The Burmese generals got away with slaughtering thousands of nonviolent student protesters in Rangoon in 1988, and they are still in power. The Chinese Communist regime did the same on Tienanmen Square in 1989, and it is still there, too. Karimov is confident that he can get away with murder, and he may well be right.If Karimov 'gets away with this' it will promote more Karimovs. It will further polarize the Muslim world, at a time when the trend has been the other direction. Last Friday, before news of the massacre broke, I wrote:
This could end up being a test of whether the President is serious about promoting democracy or whether he will abandon the reformers in Uzbekistan for pragmatic reasons.As more time transpires, and as events continue to unfold, I am becoming convinced that this may well be a test of the entire 'democratic strategy.' It tests our commitment to it, and it tests it's very correctness, if we are not willing to embrace the people of Uzbekistan because we do not trust them to form an acceptable government. Lee Harris echoes these concerns in this TCS Article. These concerns have some validity. A popularly elected Islamist government, especially if it has no guarantees for future elections, will be an enemy, not a democratic ally. Perhaps the core of the problem, is that we have not sufficiently explained what we mean when we say democracy. We have explained frequently what it is not. It is not an event, it is a process. It is not necessarily a copy of the American system of government. Defining what it is, at at least a minimal level is more difficult, and something I will take a stab at here. A democracy is continual control of governmental power by the people. To ensure that this control is continual, any democracy must ensure basic human rights. Fundamental rights necessary for a functioning democracy include the Rule of Law and Due Process, Freedom of Speech and Assembly. Absent from this minimum list are rights that I feel are important and a very good idea, but not completely necessary. I am a strong supporter of the second amendment, for several reasons, not the least being it is the right one turns to when the other rights disappear. I believe equally strongly in the seperation of Church and State and the disestablishment of Religion. I think though that there is room for culteral interpretations of these principles though, and as long as the minimal listing above is maintained practical effects of these, and other rights being missing will be slight. I would be very interested in any comments on this post as to fundamental characteristics I have missed.
posted by Dave Justus | 5/18/2005 01:58:00 PM
6 Comments:
Any form of democratic government that does not contain provisions for protection of the rights, including property rights, of the minority is doomed to turn into a tyrany by the majority. I am not a big fan of democracy however I do strongly believe in a democratic constitutional republican form of government.
All of that said it is doubtful that any lasting dmocracy that protects rights of the minority can be formed in Arab counties. Social tradition just goes against this concept!
I would like to address two issues. The first is that the Patriot Act denies people of the very Due Process that you cite as a cornerstone of democracy. Illegal searches, seizures, and wiretaps aside, the Patriot Act allows the government to apprehend and hold "suspected terrorists" indefinitely without charging them with a crime. That would be great if every apprehended person was Osama Bin Laden's rug maker, but it can just as easily apply to you or I.
Secondly, a country like Uzbekistan may be something that we should be hesitant to get into. Look at Iraq. That makes devastatinly clear the price of this sort of involvement. What is not clear is what kind of benefit we stand to gain. This should be more of a collective UN type action.
What China and the Ukraine made clear is that democratic reform requires the dictator to be willing to step aside in the face of international opinion. Viktor Yanukoyvich had two choices in the Ukraine - let the people's will decide and stand down, or send in the tanks and pay the price interntaionally. Whatever sins he may have committed, he wasn't willing to slaughter his people to keep his power. China figured that they were too important for the world to isolate them regardless of what they did, resulting in Tiananmen Square. Unfortunately, time seems to be proving them right.
Karimov is obviously willing to kill whoever he needs to to stick around, probably betting on his perceived tactical importance to keep the U.S. off his case, and the general unwillingness of everyone else to get their hands dirty to take care of everyone else. Bottom line, Karimov will probably need to be removed by external forces. The U.S., the U.N., a coalition of willing nations, whoever. Karimov has displayed a bloodthirst not seen by the rulers of the Ukraine, Krygyzstan, Georgia, Lebanon, or any of the other hopefully emerging democracies (even Lukaschenko in Belarus has kept the repression somewhat in check). Street protests will produce only dead street protestors. Sanctions will produce more starving Uzbeks while Karimov skims to keep his supporters well-fed.
Uzbekistan needs people willing to use guns. Bottom line.
GuyK: Democracy seems to work with a variety of social traditions. From Anglo traditions that it sprung from, to Latin nations, to Japan. The idea that Arabs are such an exception to this seems unlikely to me.
Sandcastle: I have been watching the Patriot act and it's effects. First off, the Patriot act allows for legal not illegal seraches and seizures and wiretaps. One could argue that they should not be legal, but they are. Also, I believe that the indefinite detentions apply only to non-citizens. While perhaps troubling from a human rights perspective, this fact means they are not a threat to domestic civil liberties.
I have not advocated a full scale invasion and Occupation of Uzbekistan, although I fear if we remain uninvolved and supportive of Karimov that will be required someday. We can strongly condemn him, cut off foreign aid, and make it clear that we view his tactics as unacceptable.
Also, be perfectly clear, the U.N. is powerless in this situation. Even if we could convince most other countries to act, Russia will not. Putin supports Karimov so the U.N.'s hands are tied.
Gib: I fully agree. Karimov crossed the line and we no longer need to feel constrained to support only peaceful resistance to his regime. I am not sure that their is any resistance to his regime that is aligned enough with our goals and principles to support however.
The question as to whether America has the nerve to support violent revolution is up in the air as well.
There is a difference between a democracy and a republic which protects the rights of minorities. The USA did not protect the rights of some until after a civil war and only after nearly 150 years did the country give the right to vote to women. Yes, no doubt that Iraq or any other country can come up with a democratic government. However,tyrany be democracy is little better than tyrany by a dictator. Do you really believe that with the 1500 years of conversion by the sword that Islam is going to grant equal rights to religions other than Islam? Don't bet your 401K on it.
Every region, nationality, whatever, that has adopted Democracy has done it after many many years of not having Democracy.
I look much more at the rights of individuals than the rights of minorities. If individual rights are strongly protected, than minorities have rights by default. Obviously you have to make sure these rights don't disappear at a whim, Rule of Law and Free Speech protect against that to a degree I believe. Certainly I think a divided government with checks and balances is also important, but there are numerous ways to divide power and provide checks and balances.
Post a Comment
<< Home