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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
