[Futurework] The fallacy of democracy

[Keith Hudson]

Recently George Bush turned very abruptly from talking of Weapons of Mass Destruction towards talking of the desirability of democracy in the Muslim world in order that they may develop their economies. Apart from talking about oil (and it will be refreshing when he even mentions that word once), this appears to be his ultimate reason for invading Iraq. He probably thought -- or, rather, his script writer did -- that he was on safe ground in talking of democracy as the way in which Iraqis could be led into a state of abundance. Surely no one would dispute that!

Unfortunately, George Bush is enunciating exactly the same fallacy that Margaret Thatcher repeated time and again during her period of office. She didn't discover this piece of historical fiction herself but she certainly gave it plenty of legroom. And, from what I remember from the newpapers of the time, most leader writers took the bait, hook line and sinker, thinking just a little about it.

It is, of course, quite wrong. What allows economic development to take place is not democracy. Most people don't give a toss for it, unless something really serious happens. It is only then that they demand to be heard. Quite rightly, too, of course in any sensible country that wishes to remain stable. But this doesn't necessarily mean democracy -- which means "people holding power" -- it means that the authorities, whoever they might be, pay attention to them when they have grievances.

Margaret Thatcher only confined her attention to Western Europe and America and conveniently forgot about Asia. The most rapidly growing country in her time in power wsas Japan. Now that country had been given a constitution by the American occupiers after WWII which had the usual trappings of democracy -- different political parties, adult suffrage, the dethronement of the emperor as a constitutional power, etc. The fact is, though, that with one party holding power ever since, Japanese democracy is a very far cry from anything that we understand the term in the west with no chance of a two-party system. Even so, Japan had a rate of economic growth for most of the post-war period which threatened to make it the most powerful economy in the world. It is still in second place even though it's been stalled for the last decade or so .

But now, China is rapidly approaching Japan's economic turnover and will overtake it with an even higher rate of growth, being destined to overtake America by 2040. And this country is even less of a token democracy than Japan is. It has layer upon layer of apparently freely elected councils and committees and assemblies but all those who attend these meetings and pass decisions on the nod have been selected from above at one stage or another in their political career. Without proceeding further to discuss in detail the relative amounts of democracy and autocracy that are to be found in several other Asian tiger-countries such as Malaysia, South Korea, Singapore that have all grown furiously fast in the past 20 or 30 yeafrs, none of them approach western concepts of political democracy.

So if it isn't democracy that produces economic development, what is it? Let us backtrack very briefly to our hunter-gatherer past -- say, to 75,000 years ago when it was likely that trade started in pigments, or say, to 30,000 years ago, when trade in flints for weapons and tools was certainly heavily traded between tribes.Now hunter-gatherer groups of about 100 people had territories ranging from several hundred square miles to several thousand square miles depending on the particular environment in which they lived.. They needed all this territory because they were partial carnivores and meat has to be hunted and is hard to come by. The fact is that they hardly met their neighbouring groups, probably from one month's end to another, and very often when they did, they were at war. The result of this is that each group rapidly developed its own language and customs -- what we would now call different cultures. Nevertheless the evidence is that they traded and also that there was also much mutual migration between them, particularly of girls when they reached child-bearing age. This 'breeding-out' instinct is genetically in-built and had to be so in order to keep the general gene pool healthy. But when they traded, and despite any previous, or even ongoing, dispute over territory or women or whatnot, they needed at least an understood element of trust between them. Two merchants, or groups from two adjacent tribes, reach that psychological moment when one party hands over the goods to another in order to receive good in return either immediately or somewhat later. (This is exactly the same situation as the trust that a restaurant places in you when they set a meal before you and you pay later.) Some form of shared law and order had to prevail at those moments of economic transaction, even between groups that were often at each others' throats the next morning.

It is trust which is the basis of all transactions. It is the trust between individuals who live in the same locality and know each other well or, as mercantile law developed, it is trust between individuals who have never met each other. Later, it became a generalised trust in a code, such as Hamurrabi's or, in modern times it is trust in a body of law which is consistent for all. In older times, a religious body would carry out this function if there wasn't a satisfactory secular authority. Even in modern times and in developed countries where there is sometimes either an absence of appropriate law for one's purpose, or the authorities are lax in upholding it, such as in Russia today or in southern Italy, then even the mafia is essential in witnessing and validating transactions.

It is a body of law, upheld by an independent judiciary that carries it out impartially if it is necessary so that all are equal before the law, that is all-important in any sort of repeated set of economic transactions which we call economic growth or development. If there is no such consistent code, then economic transactions falter and there is no hope of development. It doesn't really matter precisely what form of government is in place whether it is quasi-dictatorial or almost libertarian. Of course, in complete dictatorships or extreme libertarian societies, consistent and impartial law is excluded by definition. But within quite wide margins of democratic governance -- which, strictly speaking, consist of anywhere along a gradation of pseudo-democracies -- then economic development can take place if equality of law can be relied upon. 

In the following article from the New York Times, Steven Weisman writes interestingly about the problem of the economic backwardness of so many Muslim countries and dwells on the fallacy of the all too frequently heard insistence on the necessary development of democracy. Most of the law of Muslim countries is Sharia Law and this works well enbough at a local level when there are disputes between individuals of similar rank. But Sharia law is not equal as between men and women, and it is not equal as between ordinary people and their rulers, whether they are sheiks or senior clerics. Furthermore, Sharia law is inconsisten with mercantile law between most other countries in the world, even those with very disparate cultures such as between China and America, for example. There are some very serious anomalies in Sharia law as it has been applied to the practice of trade, such as the charging of interest. These entered into Islamic culture somewhere around the sixteenth century and has been fresponsible for its decline ever since.

However, all need not be lost. The rich in Islamic countries, such as the Saudi royals and the very small minority of successful businesspeople have been able to accommodate their practices with western mercantile law but they, like medieval kings in Europe are still above the law with respect to their ordinary underlings. A poor man in Saudi Arabia who defrauds another may have his hand cut off by way of punishment. This will scarcely happen to a rich man who defrauds another rich man or who steals from a poor man.

There is a linkage between what we call democracy and the rule of law. But it is not a strong one. Even in the most so-called advanced democracies the rich still has great advantages in a court of law compared with a poor man. So there is no clear linkage. If one has to choose between the strategy of desiring democracy in an undeveloped  country or fair laws and equality of access to justice then it is the latter which ius by far the most important.

How does this relate to the present situation of Muslim countries? It has already been remarked that a small minority from these countries have been able to overcome the constraints of their own laws, or lack of them, and to adopt some or many of those of the west -- and also, bearing Asia in mind, of the east, it must also be said. Therefore, if the west feel that they must bring the Muslim countries into the fold of economic development then they would be better to maximise trade as much as possible between them. In that way, a common sort of law can be 'democratised' as it were and can gradually diffuse downwards from the rich to the ordinary people. It is frequently said that many young Muslims say that they hate the Americans but would love to emigrate to America in order to share their way of life. They want much the same consumer goods as we doo, and it is this that should be maximised, not the shock tactics of bodily assault on their 'non-democratic' culture. They will find their own path to political practices more similar to ours if trade can be encouraged.

Keith Hudson

<<<<
BETTING ON DEMOCRACY IN THE MUSLIM WORLD

Steven R. Weisman

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's bold appeal last week for all nations in the Middle East to embrace democracy had great historical resonance, at least in the White House's vision. Mr. Bush said the current moment in the Muslim world could be compared to the birth of freedom in Germany and Japan after World War II, and in Russia and Eastern Europe after the cold war.

But there is a fundamental difference between Ronald Reagan's calling on the Russians to "tear down this wall" in Berlin and Mr. Bush telling Muslim countries to heed the handwriting on the wall in Iraq, where the United States is not only preaching democracy but trying to build an example for others to follow.

Even top administration officials acknowledge that the United States confronts two enormous risks in trying to bring about such radical change in Islamic countries.

The first is the risk of failure in Iraq, where the best efforts of the United States to establish a democracy could be engulfed by chaos if they are not accompanied by the establishment of an accepting political culture that will ensure its stability. The main worry among American policy makers is whether they can create a political system in which feuding ethnic, tribal and religious groups and militias are willing to put their faith in the ballot box, even if they lose an election.

"If there is a weak democratic structure in Iraq, it would look healthy and could function for a time," said an Arab diplomat in Washington. "But the danger is that the center implodes in a few years because of the presence of Sunni factions or militias. That would be absolutely disastrous for the region." Adds Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy, the group that Mr. Bush addressed last week "If a democracy is established in Iraq, it could have consequences far beyond Iraq's borders. But if it doesn't work, that will also have consequences beyond Iraq's borders."

Should the United States fail in its effort to remake Iraq, it could create a perception of American weakness that would embolden the radical elements of the region, whether in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran or elsewhere, in their opposition to the United States and to Western-style democracy generally.

The second risk is in the category of "be careful what you wish for." The worry is that democracy in the Middle East might empower the very forces that the United States opposes, like Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Something similar occured in the 1970s when President Jimmy Carter demanded the shah respect human rights in Iran, the domestic pressures that were unleashed helped overthrow his rule and install Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Earlier this year in Pakistan, after Gen. Pervez Musharraf agreed to local elections, the winners in the northwest frontier were anti-American Islamic fundamentalists who are believed to be cooperating with remnants of the Taliban to provide shelter to Osama bin Laden in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan. And how much latitude would King Abdullah or President Hosni Mubarak have to maintain relations with Israel if Jordan or Egypt were true democracies?

No wonder then that in Riyadh last week, a Saudi official praised Mr. Bush for setting worthy goals but he worried that if the kingdom were to hold elections right now, conservative anti-American tribal groups and radical Islamic parties would overwhelm every other force in the country, producing extremism and instability.

"Saudi Arabia has to get to democracy at its own pace," the official, who asked not to be named, said. "Otherwise, you end up rocking the boat too much."

Of course the Arab world has long moved "at its own pace" toward democracy. The result almost no democracy at all. Until recently, this state of affairs seemed to suit the United States fine, because it was easier to deal with dictators and oil-rich potentates than politicians worried about re-election.

Some countries in the Middle East have already taken a few tentative steps toward creating the building blocks of a democracy. But the pressure to do so has come, not from Washington, but from the desire of many Arab countries to join the world trading and investment networks, which will be far easier to do if they establish the rule of law and the means to redress civil grievances.

In addition, many Arab leaders say that the only way to avoid civil unrest in the future is to nurture alternatives to Islamic fundamentalist groups, which in some places are the only permitted avenues for political _expression_.

THUS Bahrain held parliamentary elections last year, and women ran for the first time. Kuwait, after many false starts since its liberation from Iraq in 1991, has held legislative elections and is promising to enfranchise women. King Abdullah of Jordan has called for more representative government, and even Saudi Arabia has promised to hold local elections at some point in the future. Morocco, Yemen and other countries have taken similar small steps.

Mr. Bush and others criticize those who are skeptical of democracy in the Arab world. "It should be clear to all that Islam the faith of one-fifth of humanity is consistent with democratic rule," Mr. Bush declared last week.

In fact, few experts say outright that Islam is incompatible with democracy. Rather, many say that unless a stable political culture is built first, elections in countries where extremist groups are accustomed to getting their way by force or intimidation pose great risks. A culture has to be built up in which all groups are willing to participate peacefully, even if their own interests are set back or compromised.

"The challenge is to help open up the space for public debate in these countries, so that when you get to the point of an election, people have a choice beyond the extremists," said Liz Cheney, a deputy assistant secretary of state who is responsible for the program to push for democracy and reform in the Middle East.

Ms. Cheney, who is the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, added that the United States must combine its support for democracy with financing of independent moderate groups, nongovernment organizations, a free press and an unfettered business environment.

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," the president declared.

But will the Muslim world, where hatred of the United States is high, accept the proposition that it is for Western nations much less the American government to accept or excuse their political life?

"No individual, or group, has ever commissioned Mr. Bush to safeguard their rights, nor is he responsible for supporting anyone here," Hamidreza Asefi, a spokesman for the Iran's foreign ministry, said in a statement carried by the Islamic Republic News Agency. "And basically, keeping in mind the dark record of the United States in suppressing the democratic movements around the globe, he is not in a position to talk about such issues."

New York Times 9 November 2003
>>>>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>