American Exceptionalism and Democracy
Paul GoodellDuring the last eight years, America has been especially committed to the ideal of spreading democracy around the globe, largely due to the efforts of the Bush administration. The administration expressed this ideal through the Bush Doctrine, which, for the first time, explicitly dedicated America to aiding democratic nations because they were (nominally) democratic, regardless of whether such aid harmed its strategic interests (as was the case with Ukraine and Russia). The Bush Doctrine is based on the belief that all cultures are basically compatible with democratic self-government — that, in the words of President Bush, “[F]reedom is the future of every nation.”
A brief assessment of the majority of democracies around the world seems to indicate that this belief is mistaken, however. It takes a special confluence of circumstances to create a society with the necessary attributes to build and sustain real, functioning democratic civil institutions. The nation where such circumstances came together best was also the first modern democracy: America. But there appears to be little reason to believe that America’s experience can be easily repeated in or exported to other countries. Upon reflection we can see that such circumstances do not evolve by chance, nor do they come together easily. And, in some nations, they may not come together at all.
America was founded by the British, by far the freest people in the world at the time. They had a fundamental commitment to limited government and a profound respect for the rule of law. Because England was too absorbed by its decades-long war with France to pay much attention to running its colonies (and because those colonies were 3,000 miles away), American colonists were allowed to effectively govern themselves for over a century before they declared independence. The colonies also had a strong middle class that became the backbone of society. (This is important because the middle class provides stability. It lacks both the desperation that can lead the poor to listen to the promises of “strong men” politicians and the greed that can lead the very wealthy to oppress others for their own gain.)
The American experience seems to present us with at least four necessary requirements for a successful democratic society:
- Strong commitment to limited government.
- Deep respect for the rule of law.
- Prior experience with self-rule.
- A strong middle class.
History suggests that it is nearly impossible for societies lacking any of these requirements to form functioning democracies. There are numerous examples of new democracies replacing old autocracies, and then barely functioning or completely collapsing under the weight of their own inability to rule themselves. Last week, for instance, Iraq had a national election that, while hailed immediately by the international press as a success, shows signs of exacerbating tribal tensions and leading the country further into civil war. Former colonies in Latin America, Africa, and Central and Southeast Asia have similarly struggled through the years, with varying degrees of success. Even in Kenya, long touted as the one true democratic success on the African continent, contentious national elections in 2007 seemed to strongly suggest that the country is, in fact, another tribal kleptocracy, not a genuine democracy.
This should not surprise us. It is unrealistic to assume that nations which have never ruled themselves, or have only briefly done so after millennia of being ruled by kings or tribal chieftains, will suddenly acquire in one generation the social habits of thought and behavior that functioning democracies took centuries to develop. If such nations can develop into functioning democracies — something that is by no means certain — it will probably take them centuries to do so, too.
It may be, however, that some societies are so far removed from any memory or experience of self-rule as to place them beyond realistic hope for genuine democratic change. Russia, China, several African nations (like Somalia, Rwanda, and the Congo), some Middle Eastern nations (like Iraq and Saudi Arabia), and some Central Asian nations (such as Pakistan and Afghanistan) may fall into this category.
To the extent that the necessary attributes for a healthy democratic society reached their highest level of development in America, it may be that America is sui generis, a genuinely exceptional case that may not be the best model for democratic reformers around the globe to imitate. Theories of global democratic expansion that fail to take this possibility into account seem doomed to fail, as the Bush Doctrine appears to be failing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, and Ukraine. History matters. Culture matters. And American history and culture are just different.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:19 am
I have been thinking about this issue since all the economic excitement began in the fall. I wonder, in addition to the points you have raised above, how the U.S. is limited in its ability to promulgate deomcracy by the fact that we are not a democracy. We are not even a representative democracy, as we claim to be. Look no further than the ecomnomic stimulus package. I saw a video in which Nancy Pelosi announced on the Senate floor that 80-some thousand of the 90,000 phone calls she received regarding the stimulus package from her California voter-base (the people she is supposed to represent) expressed dismay and begged her to vote against the proposal. She then resolutely states that we must vote for the stimulus (presumably, because she believes the American people do not know what is good for them). Maybe we cannot spread the message because we do not even understand it.
I do however like your anaylsis and find your basis for democracy compelling. I also wonder how the availability of natural resources have affected this state’s ability to embrace something closer to democracy than any other state in history as well as other states’ inability to do so. If other countries had more natural wealth, it would be much harder for governments to monopolize (through regulations or otherwise) state commerce and thus suppress the voice of the little people. What do you think? If this is the case, and we were to actually attempt to instigate democracy in another place (wanted or not), should we look more toward enforcement of anti-trust type laws rather than expressing the “ideals” of democracy and leaving the people to themselves to embrace and follow them?
February 5th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Well, the USA was clearly blessed in terms of natural resources. Even if that wasn’t the case, however, the character of people of Britain’s American colonies (in terms of their social habits of thought and behavior) was such that they would have had a leg up in establishing democratic social institutions. There has never been a situation like America’s: where a population raised to expect limited government and the rule of law (and equipped with the patterns of thought and action necessary to sustain both) moved to a lush and fertile land and was then essentially allowed to practice governing themselves for 100 years. Right group. Right place. Right time.
All this to say that I think it’s the character of the people and not that of the land that is most determinative in whether or not a society can establish a functioning democracy. Many of the nations of sub-Saharan Africa (such as the Congo) are also blessed with natural resources — waterfalls for hydro-electric power, minerals to build internal infrastructure, fertile soil to grow crops, etc. — and it hasn’t done them any good. A large part of this has to do with the undeveloped state which many of the indigenous peoples in those countries were in when they were colonized by Europe and the “rape the land” approach that European colonizers took to extracting wealth from those countries, an approach with did absolutely nothing to impart their own accumulated wisdom concerning democracy to their colonized populations. The end result is that the people of those nations still have little-to-no idea of how to build or maintain a functioning democracy. European nations found them with societies completely unprepared for democracy and left them that way, after stealing tons of natural resources (ore, precious metals, precious stones, timber, etc.).
Do I think it’s actually impossible for former colonies like the Congo to become democracies today? No. I think it would take a long time, though, and I think the first step in them getting there would have to be one where the government was autocratic, not democratic. Nations, like children, have to be ruled before they can learn to rule themselves. If the autocrat is benign, he can lead a people from not being able to rule themselves to being able to rule themselves. That’s what happened in South Korea, for instance.
Korea was ruled for 18 years by General Park Jung-hee, who toppled Korea’s unstable post-war democratic government in a coup in 1961. General Park ruled as an autocrat, and he focused on building up Korea’s middle class, which basically didn’t exist in 1961. By building the economy, and encouraging Koreans to adopt middle-class habits of thought and action, Park helped Koreans build the capacity to one day rule themselves. South Korean democracy isn’t fully established yet (http://onethoughtafteranother.blogspot.com/2008/12/south-korean-democracy-in-action.html), but the country has a very strong functioning foundation. Even Park’s detractors (including former South Korea president Kim Dae-jung, whom Park tried to have assassinated) admit that South Korea probably won’t be a stable and prosperous democracy today without General Park’s leadership.
Personally, I see that as the only way for failed or undemocratic states like Iraq, the Congo, Rwanda, and Somalia to become genuine (as opposed to nominal) democracies. And it certainly isn’t guaranteed. Human nature being what it is, autocrats who start out as benign often don’t end that way (including General Park, who was assassinated by a member of his cabinet). I don’t see another way, however. People who haven’t been conditioned to respect the rule of law and be patient when changes they want to see happen aren’t made won’t suddenly acquire such respect or patience because they had an election. They’ll turn to a “strong man” (a warlord, a chieftain, an officer, etc.) who will give them what they want. That’s what they’re familiar with. It would be foolish and naive to expect anything else.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
To your list, I would add “Belief in the value of free speech.”
Freedom of speech is, in my view, the most unique artifact of America’s cultural heritage. The philosophical underpinnings of uncertainty that underlie the doctrine took centuries to develop. Development of unique cultural norms keyed to respecting speech also took centuries. Without that counterintuitive doctrine ingrained in the cultural conscience, American-style democracy isn’t possible.
Look again to Iraq. A complete lack of the philosophical or cultural preconditions for free speech renders insoluble their problems with self-rule. In their eyes, what value is their in allowing to speak someone who is wrong, or whose view is evil in the eyes of the tribe? Definitionally, none. How can electoral democracy exist in those conditions?
February 6th, 2009 at 10:19 am
When did we decide that electoral democracy was supreme?
Presuming governments exist to protect individual rights, the question we ask is what mode of government (if any) is most efficient at delivering rights protection. As Rehnquist said, “[while] a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that …in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are.”
That is, a good democracy is only as healthy as the majority is wise. A good monarchy is only as healthy as the king is wise. A good anything is only as healthy as the ruler is wise. At the end of the day, wise rulers — however they arrive at their ruling position — are what is most in need.
February 6th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Well put.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:18 am
While I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that “[a] good anything is only as healthy as the ruler is wise”, Tom, I would argue that the balance of power seen with an increasing democracy conveys more sustainability than when authority is focused on fewer individuals. I think you are right on to point out that democracy is not be an end to be pursued above wise and fair rule (or at the expense of), but I would not agree that democracy is not better simply because “[a] good anything is only as healthy as the ruler is wise.” I do not know if you meant to take the argument that far, so I do not know if I am challenging your stance, or simply helping you to define it.
I am not saying democracy is something we should push onto other people, either. Even when a healthier option exists, it is my experience (in several areas of life) that it is necessary that some changes happen internally. Democracy (assuming it is better) may be one of those areas.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Your point is well-taken, Tom. Whatever government exists, it will only remain good as long as those ruling it remain good. This, of course, was Thucydides’ implicit assessment of democracies: that they only survived while they had wise and decent rulers
I have to disagree, though, with your short anarchic aside. The best way to make sure people’s rights are never respected is to have absolutely no government. In such a Hobbesian state of nature the strong impose their will on those weaker than they, and people would respect no rights except what others forced them to.
That said, electoral democracy is not inherently the best form of government. It seems to be the best form that we’ve come up with for cultures suited to it, but there was never a message from heaven praising it nor is there a law of nature dictating that we must adopt it. For some cultures, it just might not be a fit. Many people in our culture might be scandalized by that statement, but I can think of no good reason to deny it — other than statements of faith like those made by our latest ex-president.
I was reading an article from 2002 by the traditionalist philosopher, Lawrence Auster, where he critiqued the efforts of some to draw parallels between the US rebuilding post-war Germany and the (then-speculations about) US rebuilding post-war Iraq. Iraqis, he said, are not Germans. Germans will often do what you tell them, so you can build a democratic society in Germany. The same, Auster contended, is not true of most Middle Easterners (Egyptians, Arabs, Iraqis, etc.). They are fiercely independent and don’t usually obey when told to. This means that, so long as this independence remains a dominant trait among their cultures, you probably won’t be able to build a functioning democracy there. They’ll continue to be ruled by force, because their nature is not amenable to being ruled by consensus.
You have a lot more experience with these cultures, Jeremy. Does Auster’s critique sound legitimate?
February 6th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
“I have to disagree, though, with your short anarchic aside. The best way to make sure people’s rights are never respected is to have absolutely no government. In such a Hobbesian state of nature the strong impose their will on those weaker than they, and people would respect no rights except what others forced them to.”
I didn’t drop the anarchy bomb, you did.
Now that it’s dropped, though, weaker souls could at least contract under anarchy with agents of force who compete, as opposed to appeal to a disinterested state monopoly on police. There is no slam-dunk cause and effect between anarchy and blanket removal of respect for rights.
February 7th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Hmmm … I must have misinterpreted your “if any” comment about government to refer to anarchy. Sorry about that.
I’d say that a clear “cause and effect” relationship exists between anarchy and a blanket lack of respect for people’s rights. I can’t think of any civilized society that’s broken down into anarchy or quasi-anarchy and has maintained even a semblance of respect for people’s rights (absent, of course, the naked use of force to enforce them). If you can find one, please point me to it, because I don’t think it exists. (I also can’t speak to a Robinson Crusoe-type society that has no government, because I can’t think of an actual example of one of those either. Please feel free to include it in your search for rights-observing anarchic societies.)
February 7th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
What do you mean by anarchy? Do you mean true statelessness? Or do you mean a market-pressured state?
For instance, I think closed shop laws are immoral. I also believe people have a right to freely associate, and so the voluntary formation of a labor union is a right that ought to be protected. The same can be said for government: people voluntarily self-govern in groups all the time. That’s ok. Anarchy is the absence of a monopoly government immune from market pressure…there still might be “laws” and “organization” from voluntary association.
The most famous example is medieval Iceland. Binding arbitrators for a judiciary, no executive branch, entirely private property, and market-pressured legislators.
If you keep asking me to talk about anarchy, you’re going to eventually have me fully convert Paul.
February 8th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I’m not familiar with the Icelandic example. I’d be interested in hearing more about it.
I do know that Iceland has the longest continuous government in the world. I also know that Iceland has a very small and culturally and racially homogeneous population today — and undoubtedly did during the Middle Ages — factors that would seem to make such a “market-pressured state” more viable.