It is finals season for us over here at the Democratic Piece, so content may be a bit light over the next week or two.

As I procrastinated tonight and avoided working on my final papers, I stumbled across this three piece Washington Post article series about democracy promotion from 2005. I originally missed this piece, so as they say on NBC during reruns “If you haven’t seen it, it’s new to you!”

This piece, a Pulitzer Prize winner in 2006, gives a pretty good introduction to the field of democracy promotion. Granted democracy promotion is a niche field, but I get a blank stare every time I tell my family, friends and acquaintances what I am studying and what I want to do with my life. Democracy promotion really is a misunderstood and under appreciated part of US foreign policy.

While there are some nit-picky issues I would raise about the article, I think it does a good job of providing both a micro and macro view of the field. The article provides a glimpse into the daily life, mindset and experiences of those working on the ground, especially in countries that are at times hostile to the idea of democracy. Furthermore, Finkel’s piece, perhaps inadvertently, gives some context to some important issues that define the field:

  • Universalism vs Preconditions - does democracy require some set of preconditions (cultural, economic, or otherwise), or is its appeal universal?
  • Implementers practical idealism: “If this were the 19th century, what I would be doing is missionary work for Christianity. Now I’m a missionary for democracy, and the only way to do that is with a little humility. Be not so damn sure I’m right. Because if I’m wrong, I’m going to be on an airplane out of this country, and they’re going to have to clean up the mess.” I think this quote says it all about the prationers that work to struggle to implement and live the ideals that they feel to their core while placing them within a situational context.
  • The fickle (or manipulative) nature of “democratizing” autocracies. These leaders walk a fine line of preserving the status quo and relieving enough pressure to ensure their their survival. Anyone who generally believes that these regimes are ossified or unintelligent seriously under estimate their capacity to adapt and measure society.
  • A little has the potential to go a long way - $300,000 for six months of working with local leaders who seek greater input (apparently democratic say) in the governing of their country can provide a needed boost to their cause. Madrid is quoted as saying, “It was our highest-risk program, and it failed. In terms of what we were funded for, it failed.” I doubt that it really did. The US (obviously not counting the other countries and organizations that spend on democracy promotion) spends over $1 billion a year to promote democracy abroad, and this program barely registered on the budget scale. However, it likely did more good than the other USAID DG programs in Yemen focusing on the parliament and other government institutions.

  • Center vs Periphery - There are obvious tensions between the practitioners in the field and the bureaucrats / staff in Washington DC. The public policy process in any country is complex and distorting, and this article gives the reader an insight into how knowledgeable personnel on the ground provide recommendations for programing that are often ignored and overlooked. It also shows that sometimes practitioners engaged in their immediate context miss or avoid the broader structural framework that their programs take place.

  • Who can we work with? While the US democracy promotion efforts have not always been waged in friendly territory, much of the post cold war democracy promotion efforts have taken place in countries that have welcomed US aid, either democracy or otherwise. As energy prices have risen and US stature in the world has dropped, many autocratic regimes have capitalized on these facts to assert their strength. This resurgence of autocratic resistance forces us to deal with the Gordian issue of with whom democracy promoters can work. Do we always have to be invited into a country (like most of our program are now), or should we pursue programs that may strengthen democracy but are not welcomed by non-democratic regimes.

  • Speaking truth to our friends - An important issue that the US needs to sort in in the coming years is how we deal with our friendly “autocrats” in a post-9/11 world. So far our experience has been defined by the extremes. We now realize that we can not allow large swaths of the world to be dominated by corrupt strongmen. These areas, especially in the Middle East, provide fertile ground for al-Qaeda and their ilk to foment disgust and rage against our acquiescence of the convenient regimes that served our short-term interests. However, we also realize that democracy imposed by the “gun” is incredibly difficult to implement. How do we work with those states whose democratization is in our long-term interests while their cooperation is necessary for our short-term interest? Russia comes to mind because of their obvious backsliding and important international position, but Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, and other MENA states serve as more relevant, if not more obdurate, examples in terms of the article. While the Bush administration early on sought to force the issue with these states, they have backed off as our position in Iraq has become less tenable.

Democracy promotion tends to exist in the line-items of budgets, the minutia of foreign policy and the footnotes of history. However, this doesn’t detract from the important role it plays both for international security and humanity. As the prominent power, the US needs to establish a democracy policy that is as nuanced as the debate which shaped US Cold War foreign policy.