Democracy, Yes, But That's Not All

Recently in the American Prospect Spencer Ackerman made the case that simply wishing for democracy in Iraq (or by extension anyplace where tyranny or chaos reigns)is insufficient. He made this case in response to an AmPro argument that Shadi Hamid had recently put forth. (Part II of the Hamid article can be found here). Hamid argued:

A progressive foreign policy would elevate democracy promotion as its primary component -- not only because it is right, but because it is necessary. For a movement and a political party that continue to grope for “big ideas,” a focus on democracy would transform a set of seemingly unrelated policies into a cohesive vision that can inspire and reassure Americans.

Ackerman disagrees:

His argument was as sincere as it was misguided. As with much talk about democracy promotion, it mistook the world that American liberals would like to live in for the actual one that American liberals must confront. Hamid conflates a liberalism of good intentions with a liberalism of good results. But American liberals have a responsibility when acting abroad to advance a liberalism of good results -- good for America, and good for liberalism. [. . .]
What liberal democracy-promoters want to see in foreign closed societies is more precisely located in the advance of human rights: the protection of basic human dignity, freedom, and justice. Indeed, liberal democracy-promoters frequently criticize their neoconservative cousins for their lack of concern with the social protections of civil and legal rights. But it's time to uncouple human rights from democracy, and recognize that democracy has value only to the degree to which it safeguards human rights -- which is to say the degree to which democracy is liberal. Democracy in that respect is a fine and worthy thing, but the emphasis for the United States and for liberalism should be on the end, not the means.

At the risk of turning our audience off by going to the same piece again and again, I am going to refer to the recent op-ed piece that Tom and I penned. The reason I want to suggest that you look at this article for the first time if you have not is because I believe that it fits into the Ackerman-Hamid discussion. Here is the money excerpt for this conversation:

If you focus too much on security and the mere appearance of democracy and do not work toward fostering the development of the full panoply of liberal institutions, strongmen will take over, as has happened in Africa. Security and elections are necessary but not sufficient conditions for Iraq's ultimate success. Winning hearts and minds is fine, but creating a vibrant civil society and stable institutions enables true democracy to flourish.

I would argue (and I am speaking only for me, and not for Tom, though I will use the royal "we" since the piece is both of ours) that fundamentally, we dovetail with Ackerman inasmuch as we believe that liberal institutions fuel human rights. Unlike Ackerman, and perhaps closer to Hamid, we do believe that democracy is necessary. Indeed, we believe that human right require democratic institutions. But this is an important discussion that I believe we ought to be having, as Iraq is simply the latest grappling with what it means to reform a once-authoritarian state. In the past we have not always done so well. But that does not mean that we do not work for the future.