Asia Times, 18 July 2021, (Link) Francis Fukuyama in his famed essay “The End of History” back in
1989 focused on the turning point of human history when the Soviet Union and
communism were on the verge of collapse, and when liberal democracy succeeded
as an unchallenged ideology.
Some advocates like Jake
Donnelly have been uncompromising on the compatibility of human
rights, democracy and development. Nonetheless, he acknowledges that pure
democracy and free markets are justified by arguments of collective good and
aggregate benefit, not individual rights or social equity.
Therefore, he suggests that the welfare state is an
important device to ensure that a minority that is disadvantaged in, or
deprived by, markets is treated with a minimum of economic concern and respect.
In reality, not many states, especially developing,
post-colonial and post-conflict countries, have the capacity to provide
sufficient welfare.
In the late 2010s, Francis
Fukuyama, agreeing with Larry
Diamond’s “democratic recession,” acknowledged that state
capacity in many new and existing democracies had not kept pace with popular
demands for democratic accountability. The notable shift in his argument is the
acknowledgement of the importance of state capacity for state-building in the
promotion of democracy.
The United States’ pullout from Afghanistan has
presented yet another failed attempt for democratization without proper plan
for state-building, with some likening it to the fall of
Cambodia to Pol Pot’s genocidal regime.
From the perspective of developing countries, Adrian
Leftwich provided a more pragmatic understanding on the
processes of democratization and development. He argued that democratic
politics is seldom the politics of radical economic change but rather of
accommodation and compromise.
He asserted the importance of state capacity to deliver
public services, not only because that is required to ensure governments’
legitimacy but also for democracy to be sustained when demands from the people
become diverse and disruptive.
Given diversity of interests in society, democracy is
improbable in highly polarized societies, whether divided by income, class,
ethnicity, religion or culture. As such, it is important that democratic
politics does not promote the politics of radical change in the control,
accumulation, distribution or use of wealth.
Rather, the promotion of democratic politics should be
consensual, conservative and incremental in the change it brings about.
Democracy promoters often believe in interventionist
policy. They care little about the consequences in terms of peace and stability
due to the collapse of societies after ideological social experiments.
Peace and stability are also often left out of the discussion,
or they are secondary to the values of democracy, while in reality, states
cannot achieve anything when they are at war.
For developing countries, peace and stability are the
primary goals, while from the perspective of interventionist democracy
promoters, conflicts can be considered acceptable externalities so long as some
forms of democracy are introduced.
Interventionists do not question who should be
responsible for the loss of peace, nor do they question who should be
responsible in ending wars caused by the imposition of democracy by external
forces. For them, the moral responsibility for social collapse caused by
democracy promotion is less important than the moral responsibility for not
promoting democracy.
They lack due consideration of the violence that
generally occurs due to abrupt changes, the inherent social behavior that is
less tolerant to diversities and differences, levels of public education and
awareness of democracy, and ability of citizens to distinguish among rights,
freedoms and duties.
Democracy promotion also often presumes that people are
rational and unselfish when choosing and deciding on policies that are
beneficial for the nation. In fact, this is not always the case, because people
are selfish in nature, and unpopular policy can push a government out of power.
As such, electoral cycles can deter governments from taking risks for long-term
social economic investment, even in advanced democracies.
Voters’ selfish demands can also provide a breeding
ground for populism. Populism prospers not just on identity, interests and
ideology, but also on the selling of ideas that are not economically or
financially viable but are beneficial for voters in the short term, such as
cash-handout programs and tax cuts. Diplomacy, border issues and national
security are sensitive issues but they are prone to being exploited for
short-term political gains.
Therefore, it is important that democracy promotion is
consensual and that changes are incremental, while such promotion should not
jeopardize peace and social harmony, which are still unachievable dreams for
many countries.
Democracy advocates should also take due consideration
of the capacity of the state to deliver public services, the level of education
of the masses on democratic tolerance, and the masses’ critical thinking to
distinguish among rights, freedoms and duties.
