“Is not spreading democracy to other countries racist? Are we saying that the societies are too primitive to have democracy?”
Prof. Jackson said something to this effect in class, and it really stuck with me. Is it a form of racism to not even try to spread democracy? Is it a form of elitism? This assertion implies that democracy is the best government and is what all countries should strive for – yet, we have seen that many countries are working quite well without a democratic system of government, namely China. The belief also implies that democracy will not spread without precise action from the United States, and that the US merely acting as the “golden standard” for other countries to look toward and emulate is not enough. Intervention would be required.
However, the most important thing that statement implies is that it would NOT be racist to go in and perhaps, force a regime change. Most of the time, it is ultimately so much more racist to try and spread democracy by force to other countries. By forcing another government to change their ways, it strips that country of its sovereignty and makes the case that the state is too “primitive” to make decisions on their own.
Imposing one’s will on other states defeats the purpose of sovereignty. It creates a colonialism-type environment that will not end well for anyone. While liberalism may say that the best foreign policy option for the US would be to have as many democratic states as possible, forcing states to do anything hardly ever ends well.
I agree with everything you said. I just wanted to bring up another one of the questions that Professor Jackson proposed: "If the natural direction of world politics is toward global democratization, wouldn't the right thing to do be to help it along?" Basically our discussion came to the idea that the point we have reached in governance comes from a natural flow of political change and that all nations will eventually end up where the U.S. already is. Therefore U.S. foreign policy of democratization is merely being efficient. However, if we decided that democracy results from the natural flow of events, then how is forcing democracy on other countries advocating this idea? I just think it's hypocritical to think that we can make others the way we are, even though our government was formed through its own means. Doyle's article decided that the more democracies that exist cause a more stable sense of "perpetual peace." However, he acknowledges that this federation of democratic nations can only be formed "in a late stage and after many unsuccessful attempts." If this is where world politics is heading, then clearly we should let it happen on its own.
ReplyDelete