Monday, May 22, 2006
Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?
Bill Clinton famously said "Democracies don't fight each other." Since this famous utterance (and even before it) political scientists have scurried about trying to answer the question 'Why?.' But what if it's just a coincidence? What if it is not Democracy that stops wars and stops terrorism, but rather something else entirely?
I think political scientists may have missed the boat on this one. It's true that there have been very few wars between Democratic countries and that the biggest threats of terrorism today come from authoritarian, Middle-Eastern regimes, but it is also true that most of the Western democracies today are rich, independent of their regime-type.
Ok, that may have been confusing. Let's go through this slowly. In all likelihood, American and Britain will not be going to war anytime soon. Neither will France and Spain or Canada and Japan. But these countries are among the richest in the world. If we look at India or 'Democratic' Afghanistan or Iraq - all of these democracies are incredibly war-prone and are hotbeds of terrorism (Even if you want to take Iraq and Afghanistan out of the mix for obvious reasons, India has a tremendous terrorism problem and it has been a Democracy for a while now). Maybe it's because these countries are ranked 152, 153, and 218th respectively in per capita GDP.
Islamisism doesn't inspire terrorism single handedly - Qatar and The United Arab Emigrates are Predominantly Islamic states. And Democracy alone cannot prevent Terrorism (see India discussed above). In fact, if you buy into David A. Lake' argument in his paper, Rational Extremism: Understanding Terrorism in the Twenty-first Century, Democracy might actually make terrorism more effective.
Lake posits that terrorists are rational - that they commit acts of terror in order to provoke a disproportionate response from the victim country, thus swaying moderates to the terrorists side back in the home country. This theory, however, necessitates that public opinion matters. In order for this theory to work, swaying people needs to make a difference, and it makes the most difference in a Democracy. Thus, Democracy may only feed terrorism. Look at India or Northern Ireland. They fit Lake's argument perfectly. They both have very low per capita GDPs and their people are not doing very well at all. Although they are both highly democratic, terrorism thrives - both transgressors and targets because terrorists believe they can sway people.
Instead then, perhaps it is a measure of sovereignty that stops terrorism. Folks in Northern Ireland and Terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan feel oppressed. What's more, one of Al Qaeda's most oft-repeated demands is American withdrawal from the Middle East. What they want is sovereignty. What they want is an end to de facto, if not outright Imperialism.
I am not advocating that America just stand up and walk out of the Middle East. I realize that is dangerous and impractical. Instead I just think that America needs to take a real look at its 'Democracy Promotion' initiative. I don't think it is going to stop terrorism.
Comments:
<< Home
The classical Liberal, pre-WWI view was that Liberal nations wouldn't fight each other because it didn't make economic sense, as they were, at the time, all intertwined. That notion was shaken with the 1914-1945 (and possibly -1989) war, but now I think that the rise of the European Union and general globalisation has brought us back to that point--Britain and America, or France and Spain, or whichever two countries won't fight each other because to do so would be economic suicide.
On the other hand, as you point out, less developed nations aren't as war prone. This isn't necessarily due a lack of sovereignty (if I read you correctly) but because there's less (or more, in their eyes) at stake if they go to war. From their view, they gain more than they lose by fighting.
On the other hand, as you point out, less developed nations aren't as war prone. This isn't necessarily due a lack of sovereignty (if I read you correctly) but because there's less (or more, in their eyes) at stake if they go to war. From their view, they gain more than they lose by fighting.
Wow did you read that wrong.
I am saying that Rich countries often don't fight and don't have terrorism because their citizens are relatively happy. For all that I complain about Bush and the ignorance of some legislators, I am doing just fine compared to many in Israel, India, Pakistan, Iraq or Afghanistan who often fear for their lives everyday.
It is the poverty of Iraq, Afghanistan and India that allows for terrorism to foster there. Becuase they are poor and imperialized (america projects power onto all three) they feel oppressed and act out in the only way they feel they can: terrorism.
Its the same in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, in my beleif, if these countries can be propped up such that Other larger nations are not projecting power onto them, perhaps terrorism will stop because they can find more diplomatic outlets for their grievances.
I am saying that Rich countries often don't fight and don't have terrorism because their citizens are relatively happy. For all that I complain about Bush and the ignorance of some legislators, I am doing just fine compared to many in Israel, India, Pakistan, Iraq or Afghanistan who often fear for their lives everyday.
It is the poverty of Iraq, Afghanistan and India that allows for terrorism to foster there. Becuase they are poor and imperialized (america projects power onto all three) they feel oppressed and act out in the only way they feel they can: terrorism.
Its the same in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, in my beleif, if these countries can be propped up such that Other larger nations are not projecting power onto them, perhaps terrorism will stop because they can find more diplomatic outlets for their grievances.
Right, I didn't necessarily disagree with you--you say "it is the poverty of Iraq, Afghanistan and India that allows for terrorism to foster there," which I take to mean that were they not in such poverty, they would not have terrorism; this goes along with that traditional thinking I was attempting to mention. But how are you suggesting that these nations be "propped up such that other large nations are not projecting power onto them"?
Post a Comment
<< Home
