- 30 April 2008
-
- 8 Comments
-
-
-
- Events in DC, Panel Discussion
Carnegie’s “Junior Fellows” conference looks at new models of government
30 April 2008 Posted By Shadee Malaklou
“[Liberal Democracy] is where the world was, not where it is going.” –Daniel Patrick Moynihan
At yesterday’s Junior Fellows Conference at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, one thing was clear: The moment for democracy has passed.
Democracy, as a Western, American export has long died in its appeal. According to panelists with expertise from all over the world, including China, Russia, and Bangladesh, the world is currently in a “reverse” democratic wave, where other government models, like semi-authoritarian ones, are gaining support.
The keynote address was delivered by National Endowment for Democracy President, Carl Gershman. He, along with panelist Marina Ottaway, Director of Carnegie Endowment’s Middle East Program, both made points about Iran.
Iran was cited as an example of a semi-authoritarian state. Though arguably one of the more democratic systems in the Middle East—with competitive elections, open debates in parliament, etc.—Iran’s democratic maneuverability is restrained by the Council of Guardians, and other imprints of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, said panelists.
Ottoway, who juxtaposed the democratic model with ideological alternatives, like an Islamic state, was reluctant to give concrete examples. Similarly, she was not willing to discuss how historical and cultural factors have led to a backlash against democratic systems of governance.
As a recent graduate with coursework in Middle Eastern studies, I’m very concerned that democracy as an explicitly American export is actively creating Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East.
It is an almost uncontested fact that the Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, for example, came as a direct response to America’s growing influence in the country; and that, at least initially, the Islamic Revolution had nothing to do with Islam.
I felt that panelists at the conference were unwilling to look beyond theory to analyze today’s political climate from broader, sociocultural and historical perspectives. I also think that this is perhaps the reason why we are spinning our wheels in Washington.
I’m a firm believer (and you can blame the Cultural Anthropologist in me) that without the proper cultural and historical critiques in place, it is impossible to make any political headway.
8 Responses to “Carnegie’s “Junior Fellows” conference looks at new models of government”
I am interested to read your responses!
Democracy is encouraged, often violently forced upon other civilizations by Western muscle. But alas, as was the case in Palestine (a definite hotbed of non-Western ideologies), look how it can sometimes “backfire”. Hamas provides jobs, hospitals, schools, and security for the Palestinians, so why WOULDN’T they vote for “the bad guys”? One man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot. Dilemmas, dilemmas!
And really, as we are seeing in this presidential election, democracy has this awful tendency to create identity politics. Now more than ever it seems a good chunk of the American populace is simply looking at the candidates then looking in the mirror and saying “yeah, I identify with that!” and choosing who to vote for without actually hearing the candidate’s credibility. Might as well just look at a photo of the candidate and decide, if we’re going to be so shallow!
I wasn’t there, but it almost sounds like the debate revolves around Western liberalism and cultural alternatives, such as the Islamic Republic. Remember, democracy has its own variations, starting with example of anciant Greece in the Western tradition.
I agree with your observation, Shadee, regarding the Iranian Revolution.
Michael is also right to point out that the popular American notion of democracy is subjective, and that the American model containes constraints that are something near in comparison to the Iranian model, by means of its lack of viable political parties beyond the 2-party system. Hence, you have a condition close to Principalists and Moderate Conservatives right here in the US, and barriers to other parties.
The two basic characteristics of the Western way of life are a prideful arrogance and a devotion to selfish pleasure. This prideful arrogance often manifests itself in the belief – by Western peoples of all races – that the Western way is superior, “progressive” and even “enlightened”. It is also manifest in the belief – backed if necessary by naked military force – that Western laws have or should have sway over the whole world: that is, that Western governments have the “right” to do what they like, such as invade another country on some pretext or other, or enforce their laws upon another people even if those people do not recognize and do not accept such Western laws .
We must understand that the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organised violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”
As a student of American history, I get very concerned and somewhat frightened when I hear some of its citizens (private or other vise) talk about human rights,democracy and freedom in other parts of the world. America’s cheapening of the cause of human rights and democracy by getting involved in alleged or phony humanitarian crises under the banner of human rights to advance its own interest is a matter of public record.
Today, the biggest obstacle to freedom and democracy around the world, the biggest obstacle to implementation of human rights, the biggest obstacle to human dignity and indeed the biggest threats to the survival of humanity itself is united states of America.
Countries in Europe barely the size of Nebraska and with a trickle of America’s population have over a dozen parties represented. Yet America, which spans two oceans and has over 300 million documented people, is dominated by only two parties. I sense something is fundamentally very wrong with that!
Friends,
I want to take a moment to bring the conversation back to NIAC, and our goal to civically engage the Iranian-American community in exactly these kinds of debates.
How does the disconnected mindset described at the conference affect the way legislators draft policies, especially towards Iran? One thing is clear: Washington is desperate for an Iranian-American perspective on these issues. We need to be more vocal.
The Iranian-American community throughout the US, sadly, might not know that these kinds of conversations are happening in Washington, DC. The point I made about the Islamic Revolution, for example, is a little known fact inside the Beltway. (Most Washingtonians tend to think that the Iranians welcomed an Islamic state with open arms.)
I encourage all of you to engage your legislators about topics like US-funded democracy promotion inside Iran. Many of you already know about NIAC’s efforts to combat the US State Department’s Democracy Slush Fund. We need your help to convince Congress that measures like these only hurt efforts towards democracy.
You can read more about the Democracy Slush Fund and its disastrous consequences here: http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1028&Itemid=2
Again, thank you all for your thoughtful analysis.
Democracy is an indigenous phenomenon. It is not something that can be exported with bombs and missiles to other countries. True democracy might take more than 100 years to settle in a culture. Things that might be considered elements of democratic society might be socially and culturally unacceptable in other societis. So we must be very careful when we talk about democracy, it is not one size fits all phenomenon.
I think NIAC has started on the correct path. Obviously, that is why I am a member. In the West, there is definitely a huge gap of understanding of the fabric of the Iranian culture. Most Westerners are confused about that whole region. And of course there are always opportunists who want to take advantage of this vacuum of data and sell their weapons or something of the sort.
I think a lot of Iranians, especially those who have been living outside of Iran want to help fill that gap. But we need stronger leadership and direction. We need organization, training, etc. I think NIAC should plan for expansion, should draw up projects and ask us for support – financial or otherwise. I think a lot of people are willing to help but they don’t necessarily know what to do or how to effectively contribute. Leadership and organization is needed.