Dana Abizaid, a National Security Fellow in Tajikistan, makes some interesting points regarding democratization in Tajikistan in The Baltimore Sun.
What many here want much more than democracy is food, jobs and decent education – needs that democracy is not guaranteed to meet.
Americans have a difficult time understanding that concerns about hunger, disease and stability often trump ideal notions about democracy. Therefore, it was hard for me at first to accept my Dushanbe host family’s admiration for regional strongman Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan, who refers to himself as “Turkmenbashi,” or the father of all Turkmen.
He goes on later.
When one hears praise for current Central Asian strongmen such as “Turkmenbashi” or their ideological forefathers, Lenin and Stalin, it is right to be appalled. But it is also right to consider why citizens might be nostalgic for the days of order and stability. Unfortunately, the unquestionable though vague term democracy limits much important debate and precludes any understanding of the people the U.S. attempts to bring representative government to.
He admits that things were not necessarily better off under the Soviets and that Turkmenistan is no paradise, but he says that life under totalitarians provides relative peace and security.
It is worth noting for those who do not read his entire article that he is using popular attitudes towards democracy in Tajikistan to argue that using war as a means to install democracy is not really worth it. (Well, he does not do us the kindness of making the point strongly, but that is what his point seems to be.) I am not sure that Tajik political attitudes or attempts to democratize Central Asian states tells us all that much useful about military and statebuilding missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. All we are really left with is a call to consider whether or not democracy is the right thing for everyone but nothing about whether or not it is a worthy goal being pursued improperly or a goal to be entirely abandoned, let alone any policy suggestions.
Policymakers and especially politicians (Chris Smith and John McCain come to mind) should not be too convinced by what Abizaid puts so much emphasis on — that stability, at least the type his host family pines for, is too terribly important. This, in fact, is an obstacle that must be dealt with. Every Central Asian leader places at the heart of his case for legitimacy that he is the glue keeping the country from collapsing. While there can be a case made for some degree of authoritarianism, the odds that any of them would suddenly collapse into chaos and anarchy with a good deal less of it are quite long. Not to mention that the actual stability of these governments is far less than advertised.
On the other hand though, Abizaid does bring up questions that they would be well-advised to keep in mind when devising plans for democratization and development in Central Asia. Should the US more heavily emphasize democratization or economic development and institution-building? Should the message be repackaged so there is less emphasis on nice-sounding but vague concepts such as freedom and democracy? Should efforts in one setting be replicated to others without a clear understanding of specific local circumstances?
None of these questions are exactly simple to answer. But it would help to have a little more realistic (by which I mean “lower”) expectations of what can be accomplished and learn to be satisfied with achieving smaller goals.
{ 6 comments }
I share your frustration with Abizaid’s piece, especially his glossing over of the very different forms of democracy we tolerate. The Asian democracies, especially South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, all have very differing levels of liberalism—including restrictions on firearms that would make a standard Red Stater blush. Similarly, though a new wave of anti-American Leftism is sweeping South America, little thought is given to whether the people there actually want a more socialist economic system (I’m speaking of places like Brazil under Silva and Bolivia under Morales, even Nicaragua under Ortega, rather than Venezuela under Chavez or Cuba under Castro).
I actually encountered a similar sentiment in Kazakhstan. One Russian girl (named Olga, natch) told me of how well off her family was under the Soviets, and how little they had now. Many, especially the Russians, spoke of Stalin and even Brezhnev with nostalgia, and of the future with dread.
It is of course difficult to draw many broad conclusions from such anecdotal evidence (and Abizaid’s article is really just anecdotes). But the way people perceive their environment is of paramount importance in crafting policy. The Bush administration’s failure to do that, rather than its philosophical foundations, should be more deeply considered.
Nathan, Thank you for posting this. I wonder if Dana Abizaid might be a relative of General John Abizaid, commanding general of US forces in Iraq?
Great post! I actually noticed something similar on my recent trip to Azerbaijan, where Ilham Aliyev seems really popular.
I think the article isn’t totally intellectually honest in a way. I think if you ask almost anyone who has never experienced any real form of “democracy” but on the other hand has experienced economic ups and downs you’d expect to find that they’d place more importance in economics over politics. People who have lived first with autocracy and later democracy have told me that if you have never experienced freedom it’s impossible to even understand what it is. How then could you think democracy is such a big deal?
But does that make it less important? Unfortunately, I think the war on terror and American hypocrisy has turned the word “democracy” into a cliché. It’s almost marketed like a commodity that America manufactures and tries to sell to the world with crafty slogans, massive advertising and fabulous incentives for first time buyers. People get tired of it, especially when it doesn’t work as advertised. But the basic premise of democracy is simply government accountability. Ask those Tajiks whether governments should be held accountable for their actions (instead of asking whether they agree or disagree with flashy “democracy”) and I bet you’d get wildly different answers.
Of course food on the table is always most important; and I think practicality demands that democracy should generally be viewed as a goal instead of a means. But despite exceptions such as China the fact is that the average democratic country (including 3rd world) is more prosperous than the average non-democratic one. Getting to some sort of democracy is the tricky problem, but I think it should always be the goal.
My experience of discussing similar issues with Russians has led me to much the same conclusions as Brian.
People in Russia, just like everwhere else, have a keen interest in their own economic security, and need to make sure they are able to put food on the table. Russia today is an unstable country at times, and this does lead to a certain amount of nostalgia at times for the security they felt they had in the olden days of the Soviet Union.
But, having experienced democracy (of a sort) which developed under Gorbachev and Yeltsin, the general consensus I’ve heard has been that they would never want to abandon democracy, because of the extremely high importance they place on their own freedom.
I’m assuming that the people I’ve spoken to are a reasonably representative sample. Which does make it somewhat difficult for me to understand why there is such apathy about Putin’s current move away from democracy.
Maybe because it’s easier to notice that you don’t have enough money in your pocket than it is to identify when democratic freedoms are slipping away.
[quote]
Maybe because it’s easier to notice that you don’t have enough money in your pocket than it is to identify when democratic freedoms are slipping away.[/quote]
Even in here in America you’ll find that most people aren’t really that concerned with the government taking away their freedoms as long as it can provide stability (e.g. as long as they can get terrorists). So I think the idea of yearning for democracy requires rather sophisticated, long-term thinking that is often elusive.
Comments on this entry are closed.