admin
Yi Fan Correspondent
In his 2010 memoir, former United States president George W Bush wrote “Afghanistan was the ultimate nation-building mission . . .We had liberated the country from a primitive dictatorship, and we had a moral obligation to leave behind something better.”
It is now clear that America’s nation-building project in Afghanistan was a strategic failure.
The Afghan debacle is only the latest example of America’s failed nation-building attempts abroad.
Elsewhere in the world, the Arab Spring comes to mind. While street protests toppled long-time rulers, the new governments that took over have not been able to deliver what the people really want. Some countries have even entered an era of more turbulence and insecurity. There was no shortage of examples of similar nature in the past.
In a range of countries in the Middle East and Africa, the US attempted to replicate Western-style democracy, but ignored the historical, religious and socio-political contexts of the countries concerned.
More often than not, it is the ordinary people that bear the brunt of such failed attempts. So, what went wrong with such democratisation endeavours?
Few would argue against democracy as a shared value of mankind. But it is not Coca-Cola which tastes the same across the world. Given the diverse national circumstances, the pathways to democracy in different countries are most certainly not universal.
Perhaps we should step back a little and examine what “democracy” really means. Etymologically, it derives from the Greek word which literally means rule by the people.
In other words, people have the right and power to decide how their countries are governed. This is the true spirit of democracy and arguably the only logical characterisation.
In this sense, democracy is as much about the outcomes as about the process, if not more. After all, the people are the ultimate judges of effective democracy and what people really care about are whether their needs and concerns are met and whether living standards keep rising.
Governments that fail to do so are not really honouring the democratic spirit, at least not in its entirety.
Unfortunately, for far too long, a multi-party system and universal suffrage are considered the only indispensable yardstick for a democratic polity.
In this narrative, any governance model with such features is intrinsically “democratic” and “benign” even when it puts a completely unqualified man in the top job. In fact, this narrative is so pervasive that people almost always take it for granted without questioning its fundamental flaws.
The so-called democratic models aren’t as democratic as they seem on the surface. In many cases, government is of the one percent, by the one percent and for the one percent.
The pay-to-play billionaires, the politicians who do their bidding and the media conglomerates have together created a “money-and-media election complex” built on a set of commercial and institutional relationships connecting wealthy donors, corporations, lobbyists, politicians and coin-operated “think tanks”, eviscerating true democracy but at the same time creating this illusion that people can make a difference with their votes.
So what is democracy really about?
It is no easy task to answer such a big question. But perhaps we could approach it from the following perspectives.
Responsibility: Is a democratic government supposed to be responsible to all its citizens instead of a few at the top? Is a democracy supposed to protect its people from fear and want? In the face of major crises such as a pandemic, should people’s life and health be protected at all costs instead of placed secondary to economic concerns or votes?
Transparency: Should people have a say in the formulation of major national plans and policies? Is solicitation of public opinions an important part of decision-making? Should the public discourse reflect voices from different sectors instead of being dominated by a few media conglomerates?
Efficiency: Does efficiency matter in a democratic government? Again in the face of a pandemic, are those in power capable of mobilising resources swiftly enough to minimise the damage? If political gridlock and endless horse-trading stop the government from delivering what is needed by the people, like quality infrastructure, can it be called a true democracy?
Accountability: When things stop working for the people, especially people at the lower rungs of society, will those in power be held accountable for not delivering for the people, not just for the sake of political rivalry?
The answers to these questions are not always straightforward.
But ultimately, it is the people of any particular country that have the final say when it comes to what form of democracy they want.
It is high time that the West stop monopolising the democracy narrative. After all, only the shoe wearer knows whether the shoes fit or not.
The author is a Beijing-based observer of international affairs.
Online Reporter