Spreading Democracy

Although President Bush's uncompromising second inaugural address does not so much as mention the words Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terror, he and his supporters continue to engage in a planned reordering of the world. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are but one part of a supposedly universal effort to create world order by "spreading democracy". This idea is not merely quixotic - it is dangerous. The rhetoric implies that democracy is applicable in a standardized (western) form, that it can succeed everywhere, that it can remedy today's transnational dilemmas, and that it can bring peace, rather than sow disorder. It cannot.

The effort to spread democracy is also dangerous in a more indirect way: it conveys to those who do not enjoy this form of government the illusion that it actually governs those who do. But does it? We now know something about how the actual decisions to go to war in Iraq were taken in at least two states of unquestionable democratic bona fides: the US and the UK. Other than creating complex problems of deceit and concealment, electoral democracy and representative assemblies had little to do with that process. Decisions were taken among small groups of people in private, not very different from the way they would have been taken in non-democratic countries.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0122-03.htm

We are told that no matter one's stand on the legitimacy of attacking Iraq or Afghanistan, such U.S. interventions have brought significant steps toward democracy there and elsewhere. But is the Bush administration correct to assert that spreading democracy is, and has been, the role of the U.S. in the world? A brief review of outcomes in both Iraq and Afghanistan--as well as the history of U.S. interventions over decades?-suggests a different role, one involving U.S. based global corporate interests.

It is useful to first define what we mean by democracy. I (the first author) spoke to an imprisoned labor leader in El Salvador during their civil war in which the U.S. assisted a government ruled by military death squads. He urged me to remind the U.S. that democracy is not only about elections (which can be unfairly influenced). Democracy, he said, is more about whether it is safe for ordinary people to gather to talk about what they need and what they can do to get them met.

Though we praise the courage of Iraqi citizens and the first step of holding an election there, to this point what is transpiring in Iraq is not so much democracy as a triumph for leaders of particular factions permitted by the occupying military rulers. Too many citizens do not feel safe, to gather to talk about what are their needs and how to attain them. Iraq does not have a democracy with power to wrest control from U.S. corporations now finding Iraq a profitable market. Neither can its new government stop permanent foreign bases in its country, or insist that Iraq's rich resources adequately provide for its citizens traumatized by war. A real democracy in Iraq would reflect majority opinion to end military occupation and stop preferences given to US contractors.

In Afghanistan, democracy and specific gains for women were trumpeted by Laura Bush in her recent visit there. But outside of fortified Kabul, little democracy exists for women in a countryside dominated by warlords. Illiteracy and malnutrition are rampant, and narcotics are the only viable economy. At the same time, the military assures protection for building a pipeline to the Caspian Sea that will benefit an American oil company.

Motives other than love for democracy are suggested by the U.S. role in a recent unsuccessful coup attempt against the democratically elected President Chavez of Venezuela. The U.S. government-funded International Republican Institute provided funds for opposition parties; and its Venezuelan office praised the attempted take-over. Chavez' wealthy opponent was helped by the US Ambassador. Chavez's greatest crime was providing social programs by doubling royalties paid by U.S. petroleum companies.

The whisking away of elected President Aristide of Haiti by U.S. soldiers is not an argument for U.S. interest in democracy. The pattern is not new. Popularly chosen leaders such as Mosadegh in Iran, Allende in Chile, Arbenz in Guatemala, and Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic were all removed by U.S. military and intelligence operations. In Panama, the U.S. invaded, in part, because President Noriega planned to give a major construction contract on the canal to a non-U.S. company. Officials associated with the U.S. company that stood to lose, were concurrently occupying powerful positions in the US government. These interventions occurred in the wake of threats by those governments to make foreign corporations restore some of their profits to citizens living there. U.S. military support goes to governments cited by Amnesty International for crimes against humanity (Guatemala and Indonesia are noteworthy examples). Meanwhile, non-democratic governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and elsewhere continue to receive U.S. military assistance. Indeed, despite claims by the Bush administration and others, informed observers question how much democracy is actually budding in Egypt and Saudi Arabia?-or Lebanon- and whether those openings really resulted from U.S. interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. This sampling of U.S foreign policy reveals motivations other than spreading democracy. Indeed, a more consistent theme has been to protect the interests of U.S.-based, global corporations. Friendly democracies will do fine, but compliant tyrants are just as welcome and the cost in lives to support corporation-friendly governments is easily justified as "spreading democracy."
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0412-27.htm

Spreading Democracy?
The gang who can't shoot straight has done it again. After years of justifying war in the name of spreading democracy, the White House has backed down from that position in Pakistan. Yesterday morning's Los Angeles Times describes the problems the White House strategy now faces.

For six years, the United States has staunchly supported Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, choosing to back a military leader seen as a strong ally in the "war on terror" rather than push the general more forcefully for democratic reforms.
http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com/2007/11/spreading-democracy.html

Spreading democracy?

I remember the first time I heard those words. It was during President Bush's 2005 inaugural address: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture…. We're spreading democracy."

Going to war to spread democracy? Talk about missing the point. The only acceptable way to spread the kind of democracy that's worth spreading is to be the best damn example of it we can be. Everything else is hypocrisy.
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/?id=6370

You ask whether the Bush administration's program for spreading democracy will
prove a cause for transatlantic discord. My answer is yes, in part, and in the short
term, for superficial and transient reasons. It will reawaken the conflict of policy
perceptions that have been alive since (or even before) the invasion of Iraq. In the
long run it will produce something entirely different. Assuming that it is not
abandoned by a Democratic administration, which I would think unlikely, or its early
failures cause its more or less explicit abandonment, it risks to provoke a crisis as
important as those we knew, to our sorrow, in the 20th century.

George W. Bush insists in speech after speech that true safety for the United States
will only come when the war against terror is won and international society has been
freed to become universally democratic. The corollary of this, which the president
clearly does not grasp, is that the United States will never find safety. His is counsel
of despair. It is also a counsel of suppressed or sublimated fear of the world outside
the United States.

In my opinion, this vast new undertaking for spreading democracy will be an apple of
transatlantic discord, first of all because it is certain to provoke an aggressive Russian
reaction, which already has begun. Vladimir Putin has concluded that there is no
reason why the activity of American-financed groups intent on overthrowing his
government should continue to be tolerated. It is surprising that it has been tolerated
this long.
http://www.cicerofoundation.org/pdf/lecture_pfaff_dec05.pdf

On "spreading democracy"

Is it really something, like peanut butter, that can be "spread"? Now in an unbreakable plastic jar!

From Anatol Lieven:

The administration has also been able to neutralize domestic opposition to its "strategy" because its rhetoric appeals to a deep American belief in the

U.S.
duty to spread democracy and freedom. This is indeed in itself a noble aspiration, and has been until recently the source of much of

U.S.
moral authority in the world.

But the Bush administration's combination of preaching human rights with torture, of preaching democracy to Muslims with contempt for the views of those same Muslims, has not helped either the spread of democracy or U.S. interests but badly damaged both.

In fact, the distance between Bush administration rhetoric and observable reality in some areas is beginning to look almost reminiscent of Soviet Communism. And as in the Soviet Union, this gap is also becoming more and more apparent to the rest of the world.
http://wand.blogs.com/womenpowerpeace/2006/01/on_spreading_de.html

Lack of Democracy in the U.S.
In spreading democracy throughout the world, brazen hypocrisy prevails for Bush-Cheney
by Ralph Nader

You would think that Bush-Cheney would be sensitive to avoiding the weakening of democracy in our country while going around the world with Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, hectoring other countries about their anti-democratic practices. After all, the moral authority to admonish comes from the power of example. Instead brazen hypocrisy prevails. Bush and Cheney inherited past democratic institutions and practices, which they are tearing down in many directions.

On the way to Russia recently, Secretary Rice told accompanying reporters of her and the President's concerns over the centralization of power by President Vladimir Putin (who was overwhelmingly elected) at the expense of the states, as well as his prosecution of giant oligarchs. The crimes of these oligarchs were obvious to everyone during and after the great giveaways by then President Yeltsin of so much of Russia's natural resources. Of course, Rice has a point. Putin is cracking down on the media and some political rivals. But rankling Washington, he also prefers Russian companies in the bidding for oil and gas fields. Furthermore, he opposed demands by U.S. companies to be exempted from liability in Russia for negligent damage. Rice softens her stance by saying that today's Russia is not the Soviet Union.

But let's look at what Bush-Cheney is doing to democracy in the USA. First, these two authoritarians have centralized more power in the White House-Executive Branch at the expense of Congress, the courts and the states than previous Republican leaders would ever have done. From the Patriot Act to pursuing tort deform, from federalizing many class actions in federal courts (usurping the role of state courts) to the pre-emptive banking laws and regulations to the "Leave No Child Behind" takeover, these two pro-Vietnam war draft dodgers have generated a cascade of powers into the Oval Office.

Second, the two-party Electoral College duopoly with its "wealth elections", exclusive control of debates, and ballot access barriers, have effectively stifled competition by third party or independent candidates. Our country is dominated by a two-party elected dictatorship that carves up most districts into one-party monopolies - re-districted either by Republicans or Democrats who control the state governments. About 95 percent of House of Representatives' Districts are monopolized by one party and where elections are really coronations. Bush-Cheney and Representative Tom DeLay have worsened this downward trend.

No other country in the western world is down to a two-party duopoly. Many countries have four, six, eight, ten viable parties, instant runoff voting and often proportional representation so that more votes matter.

Bush-Cheney have set records for secret arrests and jailings without charges and without allowing defendants to have attorneys. Dragnet roundups have proved to be wasteful and harmful to thousands of innocent prisoners who were never tried, including people suspected just of being material witnesses. Bush and John Ashcroft have yet to catch and convict a terrorist, though they have arrested over 5,000 people suspected of terrorism. The two convictions they secured were overturned by courts in Michigan.

The violation of due process, probable cause and the rule of law has damaged America's standing in the world where billions of people believe, given the illegal invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, that the Bush's government stands for "might is right." Former General Wesley Clark has called the Bush Administration "a threat to domestic liberty." While the respected columnist and editor, Michael Kinsley, writing in the Washington Post, said "in terms of the power he now claims, George W. Bush is now the closest thing in a long time to dictator of the world."

In Cicero's words, "freedom is participation in power." Bush-Cheney have made sure fewer people are participating, while poverty, hunger, consumer debt, non-living wages, the uninsured, environmental damage, electoral shenanigans, tax cuts for large corporations and the wealthy, militarization of both foreign policy and federal budgets keep worsening.

Recently, spokesmen for foreign countries - including Russia and China - have begun to mock Bush-Cheney, urging them to look at their own backyards. It is easy to dismiss such charges from more authoritarian nations, including the communist dictatorship in China. But remember, these officials, coming off the iron rule of Stalin and Mao and their predecessors, think they are making progress by comparison. What are the excuses of Bush-Cheney? They are coming off the traditions of Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Bush-Cheney, instead of standing on their and others' shoulders, are driving America backwards into the future. Keep that in mind, Secretary Rice, during your foreign travels. Fig leafs of hubris do not make an exemplary foreign policy.
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views05/0426-30.htm

According to a report from Arms Trade Resource Center of the World Policy Institute, the majority of US arms sales and materiel transfers since 9/11 have gone to countries that the State Department rates as 'undemocratic' and/or as having poor human rights records. As if that isn't enough, the study also says that US-made arms are being used in every major military conflict on the planet.

According to report co-author Frida Berrigan, arming undemocratic governments often helps to enhance their power, and exacerbates conflict or enables human rights abuses. In addition, it undermines efforts to cut off financial and political support for terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. Says Berrigan: 'Arming repressive regimes while simultaneously proclaiming a campaign against tyranny undermines the credibility of the United States and makes it harder to hold other nations to high standards of conduct on human rights and other key issues.'
http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/001165.html

"Do not confuse the two. The War on Terror supposedly fights terror and spreads democracy. However, the two often work at cross puposes. In Palestine, democracy got us Hamas. In Pakistan, "fighting terror" actually destroyed democracy."
http://theseminal.newsvine.com/_news/2007/11/20/1111424-the-war-on-terror-spreading-democracy

Hugo Chavez was overwhelmingly re-elected yesterday as Venezuela's President. Opposition to the United States played a significant role in his successful campaign, as he promised "a more radical version of socialism and [to] forge a wider front against the United States in Latin America."

Over the last two years, the Palestinians democratically elected Hamas leaders. The Lebanese have democratically elected Hezbollah to play a major role in their parliamentary government. The Iranian-allied militias in Iraq are led by factions with substantial representation in the democratically elected Iraqi Government. And the Iranian Hitler himself was democratically elected (just like Hitler the First was, long before the parade of all the new Hitlers).

If the leaders whom we are supposed to hate so much -- even the ones who are The Terrorists -- keep getting elected democratically, doesn't that negate the ostensible premise of our foreign policy -- that America-loving allies will magically spring up all over the world where there are democracies and they will help us fight The Terrorists?

And beyond that, isn't it more likely that leaders who are hostile to the U.S. will be democratically elected around the world if we continue to engage in conduct seemingly designed to make the whole world resentful and suspicious of us? We're not supposed to care about world opinion -- we don't need permission slips from the U.N. and all of that -- and there is a good argument to make that every country has to decide for itself what its own interests are (which, in reality, is what every country does, including those which pretend to be guided by selfless ideals and international institutions).

But if we continue to be overtly belligerent and essentially indifferent to world opinion -- because we can be, because we're militarily stronger -- that would seem to make it virtually impossible for pro-American candidates to be elected anywhere in the world, thereby subverting the central goal we claim we have of eliminating anti-U.S. resentment by spreading democracy throughout the world. As this Bush follower lamented after complaining about Chavez's victory (h/t Instapundit):


It seems to be a popular move this year to run an Anti-Bush, anti-US military campaign. It worked for the democrats, too.

Good Luck.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/fruits-of-democracy.html

"The minute you are counted on or backed by the Americans, kiss it goodbye, you will never win."

The paradox of American policy in the Middle East ?- promoting democracy on the assumption it will bring countries closer to the West ?- is that almost everywhere there are free elections, the American-backed side tends to lose.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/world/middleeast/10arab.html?ex=1344398400&en=4ff922743903a681&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Spreading democracy Palm Beach County syle
"I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count."


Those were the words John Bolton yelled as he burst into a Tallahassee library on Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, where local election workers were recounting ballots cast in Florida's disputed presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
http://www.topdog08.com/2005/04/spreading_democ.html

Afghanistan's Presidential Elections: Spreading Democracy or a Sham?
by M. Nazif Shahrani
(Saturday, October 9, 2004)

"Karzai and Bush have proclaimed that the reported registration of more than 10.5 million Afghans to cast ballots in the presidential elections is evidence of their success in bringing democracy to Afghanistan. This number, according to an Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU) report in September 2004, may "well exceed 11.5 million -- roughly half the estimated population of Afghanistan" once the registration of Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran is completed."

Less than a month before George W. Bush's second bid for the White House, his protégé and partner in post-Taliban Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, faces an election that both men hope will not only establish the legitimacy of Karzai's presidency but also prove the Bush administration's claim that the war-ravaged nation's transition to democracy has been a success.
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/10378

Spreading Democracy American-Style
If there's one central theme to the foreign policy of President George W. Bush, it is the promotion of freedom and democracy. It is sure to come up when he meets Afghan President Hamid Kharzai today at the White House.

Kharzai is angry over reports of the U.S. military abusing Afghan detainees. It is the same anger that is heard throughout the Muslim and Arab world over similar reports from Guantanamo, and Abu Ghraib.

It all feeds into frustration with America's push for democracy. Many say it is too inconsistent -- talk of freedom, but on the ground, too much of a colonial or imperialist attitude. So how can the U.S. polish up its tarnished image? Some say the only way to promote freedom and democracy is quietly and behind the scenes.
http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2005/05/20050523_a_main.asp

Meanwhile in Ankara: the real hope for spreading democracy in the Middle East isn't Iraq--it's Turkey.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-114477541.html

The Bush Doctrine - Spreading Democracy Throughout the World

What would The Founders say about the the Bush Doctrine of spreading democracy - through force, if necessary. Bush claims he is a strict constructionist, but is he when it comes to the use of force?

The National Interest includes an article that takes on this question.

Here are some excerpts from a new article, The Freedom Crusade by David C. Hendrickson & Robert W. Tucker

A central question raised by the Bush Doctrine is the extent to which it comports with the historic understanding of the American purpose. Normally, an active role in the propagation of free institutions is attributed to Woodrow Wilson, and it has become customary to identify America's recent presidents--especially Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush--as "neo-Wilsonians." But Bush goes further, insisting that the policy proclaimed in his second Inaugural Address is a logical outgrowth of America's historic commitment to free institutions: "From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value. . . . Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government. . . . Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation."

The determination of the "intentions" or "original understanding" of the Founding Fathers has often excited attention and speculation, but as often as not their intentions have seemed shrouded in ambiguity. The "silences of the Constitution" have often been as important--and mystifying--as its plain avowals. But the questions raised by the Bush Doctrine--whether it is rightful to propagate changes in another nation's form of government and what role the United States should play in the protection and expansion of free institutions--often commanded serious attention, and the answers given by the Founders and their epigones lend no support to the Bush Doctrine.

. . .

The incompatibility of Bush's crusade for democracy with central elements of the American tradition does not show that it is wrong. The earth, as one earlier "practical idealist" said, belongs to the living. Even if the democratic crusade does not represent our deepest beliefs and values, it may nevertheless respond to our vital security interests. Does it?

. . .

At bottom, what is most objectionable about the Bush Doctrine is the junction it postulates between freedom and force. When John Quincy Adams declared that America should be the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all, but the champion and vindicator only of her own, he argued that the contrary policy would entail an insensible shift in our maxims "from liberty to force." By the maxims of force he meant what today would be called militarism--"a tendency", in Andrew Bacevich's words, "to see international problems as military problems and to discount the likelihood of finding a solution except through military means." That was the way of the "war system" of the European powers to which the Americans of Adams's day had such strong objections, and it is also the way of the contemporary United States.

Charity, it has been said, begins at home. So does respect for the principles of freedom. If we are to hope that others might gain instruction and profit from our example, we ought to make certain that our example is a good one. The current generation of Americans might gain instruction from the liberal tradition as much as others. The prohibition against the "midnight knock of the secret police" does not have attached to it a large asterisk that allows the supposed apostles of freedom to engage in such practices when they find it necessary or convenient. Above all, the liberal tradition condemns a promiscuous attitude toward the use of force. Nothing can be more damaging to the tradition of civil freedom than invoking the name while the substance is violated, nothing more revolting than the prostitution of the "sacred fire of liberty" to purposes at odds with its central precepts. "Observe good faith and justice toward all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all", observed George Washington in his Farewell Address. "Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it?" Washington believed that "the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it." It is a measure of the distance we have traveled from the principles of our Founding that these temporary advantages are now seen as dispositive, as the supposed dictates of necessity repeatedly trump respect for principles dear to the liberal heritage. Such an attitude mocks, rather than respects, "the honorable achievement of our fathers."
http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=484

As at his inaugural, the theme of freedom again figured prominently in George W. Bush's State of the Union address. This would seem to confirm the seismic transformation of an administration that arrived in Washington four years ago mocking the very notion of democracy promotion. Neoconservatives are delighted, while traditional security conservatives scoff at the idea of democracy as a centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy.

The reactions of both camps are misplaced, however. For despite his stirring rhetoric, the reality is that Bush simply doesn't have a very strong record of promoting democracy abroad.

During his first term, Bush praised the democratic visions of Vladimir Putin and Pervez Musharraf as they systematically smothered the embers of freedom in Russia and Pakistan. This is the president that stood shoulder to shoulder with the Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao, while publicly condemning a proposed referendum on independence in democratic Taiwan.

This is the same administration that was the only government in the Western Hemisphere to recognize the ill-fated coup attempt against the democratically elected leader in Venezuela. Despite its democratic pronouncements, this administration remains a steadfast supporter of entrenched autocrats in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Central Asia.

Even in Iraq and Afghanistan, places that Bush's supporters point to as examples of his commitment to advancing freedom, the evidence is dubious.

Leaving aside the irony of invading a country to "bring it democracy," Bush nodded to the Department of Defense to take the lead in the democracy-building effort in Iraq. Their plan: Install Ahmed Chalabi as the new Iraqi leader. The U.S. has been scrambling in Iraq ever since.

Coming nearly two years after the invasion, the recent elections are an important step toward creating a degree of legitimacy within Iraq's political leadership. This accomplishment, however, has come at considerable cost in lives lost, stability and American prestige?-costs that could have been mitigated if a commitment to prepare for a democratic transition had been made a priority.

In Afghanistan, the Bush administration sided with the country's powerful warlords at the expense of the new central government?-a choice deemed necessary to track down the Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership. And despite the elections there, insecurity remains the predominate theme in the country.

The essential point is that establishing democracy was not the rationale for these military interventions. It has always been an after-the-fact justification for other priorities?-capturing Osama bin Laden, destroying Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and eliminating Saddam Hussein's control of weapons of mass destruction.

Rather than a democratic idealist, Bush is better described as someone who has co-opted the language of democracy while pursuing business-as-usual policies. While politically expedient, this confounding strategy carries considerable risks.

First, it distracts Americans from addressing some of the very priorities Bush trumpeted in his speech. Peace and prosperity elsewhere in the world do contribute to U.S. security. Democratic governments do a far better job, on average, of generating improved standards of living and avoiding conflict.

Second, promulgating the rhetoric without pursuing the requisite policies sets a democracy-based foreign policy up for failure. Little is done to advance democracy around the world, while "realists," like former U.S. National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, can blame the shortcomings of Bush's foreign policy on the ideological weaknesses of a democracy-oriented approach. Heads, realists win; tails, democracy promoters lose.

Third, the disconnect between rhetoric and reality has stirred up deep suspicions of established means of democracy promotion. The credibility of efforts to strengthen the capacity of reformers and build real democratic institutions are undermined. Instead, American democracy promotion has come to be defined as the invasion of Iraq. And the lawlessness, the destruction, the emergence of terrorism and the foreign occupation that are associated with this package are a tough sell for democratic reformers in the Arab world or elsewhere.

Fourth, hollow oratory only corrodes perceptions of U.S. credibility in pursuit of its principles. The effect is to weaken the United States' ability to lead in its strategic aim of shaping global norms of democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, non-proliferation of illicit weaponry and the illegitimacy of terrorism.

Promoting democracy means more than basking in the glow of American idealism. It requires consistently backing, in word and deed, those who are fighting to see it realized.

Better not to say anything than to make idealistic pronouncements that have no bearing on U.S. actions. Otherwise, democracy promotion will come to be understood as American opportunism rather than a genuine desire to see more of the world's citizens gain control over their destiny. America's credibility is a precious commodity. Americans wear it out at their own peril.
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/washington/articles_publications/articles/halperin_20050209

I'd just like to thank Ramafuchs for posting all those interesting articles.
Keep 'em coming...

The Folly Of Exporting Democracy
Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman


A certain awareness of the limits on American power is growing among the wiser U.S. policy elites as a result of the disasters into which the Bush administration has led the United States. Even in these circles, however, a very widespread belief exists that in the former Soviet Union and in the Muslim world, America can compensate for these weaknesses by encouraging the spread of democracy. The idea that "democracy" will solve all problems is also used as a conscious or unconscious excuse to avoid having to think seriously about negotiating compromise solutions to a range of disputes in the Middle East, and especially, of course, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?-since this would require a willingness to show moral courage in facing the inevitable backlash within the U.S.

This faith and attitude is shared not just by neoconservatives and liberal hawks, but by a majority of the leaderships of both parties, by majorities in establishment think tanks like the Carnegie Endowment and the Brookings Institution and by much of the foreign policy bureaucracy. It is also not a fantasy cooked up by the neo-conservatives, but has deep roots in certain strands of the American tradition. It is also often tragically mistaken


What on earth, for example, are we to make of the fact that in 2006, Freedom House gave China its lowest mark, seven, for political freedom and a six for civil liberty?-barely different from the seven and seven it gave in 1972, in the depth of the dreadful Cultural Revolution?[x] Does Freedom House seriously think that ordinary Chinese are no freer today in real terms than at a time when their country was being swept by waves of monstrous totalitarian fanaticism, leading to the death, torture and deportation of tens of millions of people? Is this the same country of which two New York Times headlines of March 12 read, "A Sharp Debate Erupts in China Over Ideologies" and "Film in China: Fantasy trumps controversy, officially, but all movies are available one way or another." If challenged on this and similar idiocies, Freedom House officials tend to reply that they work on the basis of very narrow criteria, like free elections and private ownership of the media. But this is not an excuse?-it is a confession.

Too much of the democratist ideology and its recommendations fail the test not just of study but of common sense, as well. Too many American democratists base their whole approach to the world on the assumption that they know how best to run countries of which they know nothing, whose languages they don't speak and which, quite often, they have never even visited! Would you hire a junior marketing executive with these credentials? For our part, we know perfectly well that we could not sell two plates of bean shoots in China or two sticks of kebab in Iran. We suspect, however, that most of those advocating democratism in these countries could not sell even half a plate.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/12/the_folly_of_exporting_democracy.php