Recently, National Public Radio conducted an interview with Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The interview was ostensibly about possible outcomes from the recent elections in the Palestinian territories, and thus it adds some additional perspectives to a previous thread on that issue. However, Kagan goes on to expound on what components are necessary for a functioning democracy as well as the order in which we find them occurring. Hence, it also offered some poignant remarks for a posting I made earlier this week on the challenges faced by countries transitioning to democracy and what truly defines a democracy.
On the Palestinian elections, Kagan suggests that what we witnessed last week was most likely a necessary and productive exercise – both for the Palestinian people and for the wider Muslim world. Kagan states:
…probably Islam needs to go through this process. They need to go through the process of winning fair elections and then having to take a part in governing. I think that it may be the answer, to some extent, of the radicalism of Islam if they see that there is a root to governance through the democratic process.
After comparing the experience of socialists and communists during the Cold War to the plight of radical Islam today, Kagan asserts that there comes a time when popular political movements must decide whether they want to participate in governance or not.
It’s not as if Hamas wasn’t an influential force in Palestine before this election. Now, they’re an influential force that has to govern. I’m not at all sure that that is a negative development. I’m inclined to see it as a positive development.
Kagan then proceeds to discuss more broadly the challenges confronted by countries transitioning to democracy and offers some thoughts (inadvertently) on the debate recently instigated by the publication of the study Electing to Fight. Kagan observes:
But I don’t think that because in one election here or somewhere else we’re not thrilled with the people who are elected, that that means that democracy promotion is a bad idea. I think that we should have some faith as democrats ourselves, that over the long run and maybe even over the medium run, democratic elections will ultimately produce better governance in the countries that hold these elections and better allies for the United States.
Kagan finally offers his thoughts on the “chicken vs. egg” conundrum of democracy — whether countries should have liberal institutions in place before elections commence or whether elections can be the catalyst for the development of effective democratic institutions within a society:
The definition of what constitutes a genuine democracy has been a lively subject of debate in the political science world. Obviously, you want to see just not one election but several elections. And of course, you want to see the development of what people refer to as liberal institutions, the rule of law, an open economy, a free press, etc., etc. There are many people who think that you have to have those things before you should worry about elections. And I must say, I disagree with that. I think elections are more likely to produce liberal government than the other way around.
Published Date: February 02, 2006