Promoting Democracy
So, last night I collected my kickball team together for a drink at Ventnor. Naturally, because it’s me, I somehow got into a discussion about the promotion of democracy. One of my new teammates works for some democracy NGO and I asked her about what activities they did. She said they promoted election oversight and free press.
Now, certainly I agree with free and fair elections and a free press. But, I also believe that minority rights and secular governance are essential to a stable democracy. Fair elections lead to majority rule, but as John Stuart Mill pointed out, there is the tyranny of the majority. Democracy needs to be more than just two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. Minority rights must be protected and, in order to achieve this, there must also be secular governance since it is fairly clear that religious governments create laws that interfere with the practices of the minority.
Egypt is a prime example of a nation where many in United States do not want majority rule. Mubarak holds crooked elections in order to maintain power against an Islamic opposition party and the US supports him. If the Islamic opposition party took over, the US would have one fewer ally in the Middle East and the secular and Coptic minorities of Egypt would probably be persecuted.
Francis Fukiyama pointed out in “the End of History” that most people in the world agree with democracy. That idea has won and is considered legitimate. Even in nations where there is little democracy, they think it’s a good idea. When the US supports an anti-democratic regime, it loses legitimacy. Thus, when movements against crooked regimes become the populist movement, being anti-American becomes the populist movement. When the US struck down anti-democratic regimes in Eastern Europe, the populist movement became pro-American.
But, rather than go with the democratic flow, the US is picky and choosy about promoting democracy because, while they fear religious states, they don’t want to look like they are against that particular religious. Instead, they act in a subversive manner to keep back the religious party, which in the end fools no one.
Oddly, I see few international calls for secular governance and religious freedom. We debate the issue in our own nation and praise out First Amendment, but few are willing to say that there should be no states based on religion abroad. Yet, oddly people are willing to say there should be democracy. Even this girl’s democracy NGO tried to steer away from discussion of religion.
Of course, I may be wrong about this whole secular governance thing. If anyone has an example of a religious state with a functioning democracy that protects minority rights, please let me know.
Now, certainly I agree with free and fair elections and a free press. But, I also believe that minority rights and secular governance are essential to a stable democracy. Fair elections lead to majority rule, but as John Stuart Mill pointed out, there is the tyranny of the majority. Democracy needs to be more than just two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. Minority rights must be protected and, in order to achieve this, there must also be secular governance since it is fairly clear that religious governments create laws that interfere with the practices of the minority.
Egypt is a prime example of a nation where many in United States do not want majority rule. Mubarak holds crooked elections in order to maintain power against an Islamic opposition party and the US supports him. If the Islamic opposition party took over, the US would have one fewer ally in the Middle East and the secular and Coptic minorities of Egypt would probably be persecuted.
Francis Fukiyama pointed out in “the End of History” that most people in the world agree with democracy. That idea has won and is considered legitimate. Even in nations where there is little democracy, they think it’s a good idea. When the US supports an anti-democratic regime, it loses legitimacy. Thus, when movements against crooked regimes become the populist movement, being anti-American becomes the populist movement. When the US struck down anti-democratic regimes in Eastern Europe, the populist movement became pro-American.
But, rather than go with the democratic flow, the US is picky and choosy about promoting democracy because, while they fear religious states, they don’t want to look like they are against that particular religious. Instead, they act in a subversive manner to keep back the religious party, which in the end fools no one.
Oddly, I see few international calls for secular governance and religious freedom. We debate the issue in our own nation and praise out First Amendment, but few are willing to say that there should be no states based on religion abroad. Yet, oddly people are willing to say there should be democracy. Even this girl’s democracy NGO tried to steer away from discussion of religion.
Of course, I may be wrong about this whole secular governance thing. If anyone has an example of a religious state with a functioning democracy that protects minority rights, please let me know.
posted by American Dilettante at
11:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home