That’s not necessarily wrong…in fact I still haven’t decided how I feel about it…but I think there is a definite distinction between democracy assistance and governance assistance.

Now, we’ve read a lot of the same articles and a big problem with “democracy promotion” is that it talks a big game but then fails to deliver. In this view, the move by Obama et al is a good decision. They’re going to focus on the ability of governments to provide for their people. However, if you help Azerbaijan “provide” for its people, you’re basically helping an authoritarian government to survive.

If you provide that support to India or many of the other democratic countries (varying in “democraticness”) that need our help, you’ve got a great policy. We help democracy deliver, thereby increasing the value of the “brand” and making it more desirable on its own.

That would require a huge shifting of development assistance funding (as you know) and so I don’t think it’s going to happen. Instead we’ll be improving the ability of non-democratic governments to provide for their people and thereby extend their rule. There’s good in that: the people that we help will be marginally better off. But there’s also bad: we keep authoritarians (who abuse powers and deny right very often) in power.