Democratic Development in Non-Western Societies Involves More than Simple Transplantation
By Dr Khalid B. Sayeed
Professor Emeritus
Queen's University
Ontario, Canada

Winston Churchill talking about the unfolding course of events during the 1940s observed that the course of history is difficult to forecast because of the changing perspective of time. "In one phase men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong." This is because the scale of values and interpretation of events keep changing.
We are now witnessing how Americans are trying to develop the democratic process in Iraq and the Middle East. We have already witnessed how the Americans themselves have to change their responses in the pursuit of their own policies to the unfolding of events. Americans still seem confident that Iraq should be able to develop democratic institutions. But, their confidence in the establishment of the democratic process is being challenged by the continuing conflicts between the ethnic and religious groups like the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. To establish consensus between the Sunnis and the Shiites is difficult enough, but some observers are predicting that the Kurds my eventually try to establish their own state in the north. And, for this purpose they may use the democratic process.
The central problem that Americans and others fail to see is that democracy in new societies cannot be established without growing pains and disruptions. History tells us that attempts to establish democratic institutions have had varying degrees of both successes and failures. Even in Canada where the British tried to establish democratic institutions in which the English, French and various provincial groups would work together under democratic institutions, the strategy that was followed was one of certain measured stages. Canadians by and large were descendants of a European stock. However, the plan that was followed under the Durham report of 1837 was that democracy would be established through two stages. In the first stage, there would be representative assemblies. In the second stage, such representative assemblies were transformed into institutions of responsible government with cabinet ministers responsible to the assemblies.
Nearly a century later, the British government in India tried to pursue the policy of what they described as progressive realization of the responsible government. This policy was challenged by the Indian national movement under leadership of Gandhi and Nehru. Nationalists under the leadership of Nehru interpreted British policies with intense indignation and non-cooperation. These nationalists thought that the British policies were cloaked with imperialist designs. Thus, Nehru wrote "more powerful than words was the practice that accompanied them and, generation after generation and year after year, India as a nation and Indians as individuals were subjected to insult, humiliation and contemptuous treatment".
However, even strong nationalists like Nehru were persuaded through the British conciliatory policies announced in the 1940s involving transfer of power to Indian nationalists. But, Muslims in India wanted their own share of power and the result was the establishment of two states in the subcontinent, namely India and Pakistan. It can be claimed that India has continued as a democratic society whereas Pakistan has been functioning under continuous military rule.
The fundamental question that we face today is whether American political and military domination of certain Islamic societies can be translated into establishing functioning democratic regimes. We have already seen how the United States is finding it difficult to set up an appropriate democratic society in Iraq. The same problem is facing the American planners in Afghanistan.
We find that the question we have raised above has been examined indirectly in two recent scholarly works: Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred by John Lukacs (Yale University Press) and First Democracy: The Challenge of An Ancient Idea by Paul Woodruff (Oxford University Press). These authors suggest that the establishment of democracy does not depend merely on factors like universal suffrage and majority rule. John Lukacs in his book, Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred, has argued that a Republican regime like that of George W. Bush has succeeded both at home and abroad by combining in an adroit fashion factors like fear and hatred. A similar kind of explanation was offered by Senator J. William Fulbright in his book, The Arrogance of Power. Senator Fulbright's argument was that there were two Americas, one which was influenced by Abraham Lincoln and the other by super patriots like Teddy Roosevelt. It is obvious that George W. Bush belongs to the same category of super patriots.
Lincoln in a speech given in 1858 pointed out that the persuasive influence of the United States would depend upon how America would influence the conduct of other nations through the prize of "liberty as the heritage of all men in all lands". It is obvious that President Bush has relied almost entirely on the fears that the so-called Islamic terrorists have provoked against the United States. The question is; should the United States merely retaliate against the terrorist by using this factor politically or should the United States take the large-hearted view and probe what justification the terrorists have against America. The terrorists blame the United States for having encouraged and allowed the tyrannical regimes under which they live. The central point is that the insurgents and terrorists think that the hardships they are facing have been the result of America and other western powers imposing their domination on Islamic countries for the purpose of securing American and western oil interests.
It is most unlikely that the United States can promote democratic behavior and culture through a policy of domination. In this context, no one has formulated as moving a guiding principle as Dag Hammarskjold, the former United Nations Secretary-General, in his book, Markings. He exhorts us:
"Your position never gives you the right to command. It only imposes on you the duty of so living your life that others can receive your orders without being humiliated." (page 105)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editor: Akhtar M. Faruqui
© 2004 pakistanlink.com . All Rights Reserved.