U.S. Export Democracy to Overseas Countries - Research Paper Example

U.S. Export Democracy to Overseas Countries Following the end of the Cold War, Fareed affirms that promoting the spread of international democracy was replacing containment as a guiding principle of the U.S foreign policy (25). Commentators, policymakers and scholars relished the idea that America’s immediate mission was democratization1. However, the recent years have seen the emergence of critics who argue that promotion of democracy may be harmful or unwise. This research paper presents the argument of why it is beneficial to the U.S to spread international democracy and refutes a few of the arguments against the U.S spreading democracy internationally. Pros i. Liberty is Good and is a Product of Democracy ii. Liberal Democracies are Unlikely to Use Violence on its People iii. Democracy Enhances Long-Term Economic Growth iv. Democracy is good for the International System v. Democracy is good for Nationalities of New Democracies Recently, many have criticized and advocated against the U.S effort to spread democracy. Robert Kaplan, in an article, argued that democratic elections held in democratic countries may result in reduced capabilities in maintenance of ethnic peace, economic development and social stability.2 However, this paper adopts an argument that backs the U.S efforts to spread democracy across all neighboring nations and the rest of the world. Liberty is good and is a Product of Democracy. The promotion of democracy improves the living standards of people through promotion of individual liberty, which includes freedoms of conscience, expression and to own property privately3. Samuel Huntington refers to liberty as the “peculiar virtue of democracy.”4 Governments who are less accountable to the public usually deny their citizens certain human rights, which is contrary to the democracies that the U.S is supporting which give rise to public accountable governments that do not deprive citizens of their rights. Liberal Democracies are Unlikely to Use Violence on its People. Liberal countries are less likely to incur civil unrests which results in violent death as well as government-caused deaths.5 Rummel reports that only 0.14% of the population of democracies died annually due to internal conflicts between 1900 and 1987.6 During the same period, authoritarian and totalitarian systems recorded 0.59% and 1.48% respectively with the same result indicating that citizens of democracies are not likely to die from government-initiated causes. This is contrary to the case with genocides and killing of citizens linked to authoritarian and totalitarian systems, for instance, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan among others.7 Democracy Enhances Long-Term Economic Growth. It has been proved that democracies lean toward greater prosperity for a long period of time.8 More individuals enjoy continued economic benefits with continued spread of democracy. It has been argued that democracy does not directly lead to prosperity although some still believe there is a close relationship between the two which is a principal advantage of the democratic system. Democracies like India have economically lavished in the recent years, an occurrence that is backed by Mancur (1993) when he points out that countries which have achieved highest levels of economic growth have not done so by accident but because they are democracies. He adds that autocratic countries succeed over a short period with dictators who have good economic policies, usually one or two regimes.9 This was evident in the Soviet Union when the Gross National Product growth rate was higher than that of the U.S. This rapid growth could not be maintained for a long time and the economic failings that followed resulted in the disintegration of the country into political and economic mayhem.10 Democracies usually perform better economically over a long time because they have market economies which usually have a tendency towards long-term economic development. Democracy is good for the International System. As we have seen earlier, democracy plays a vital role in the improvement of the lives of the people. In addition, democracy reduces the chances of wars since democracies rarely fight each other. One notable scholar points out that “the absence of war between democracies comes as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations.”11 If the U.S spreads its democracy to other countries, then the chances of war arising are diminished thus ensuring a peaceful world. In essence, the U.S will only be adding to the size of the democratic peace zone. According a 1983 article, Michael Doyle argues that liberal states which are constitutionally secure are yet to engage in fighting and that it is not by chance.12 Democracy is good for Nationalities of New Democracies. In the above cases, some of the reasons why the U.S should spread democracy to other nations are clear. Above all, there still exists a key and humane reason as to why this should go on.13 Many will be asking themselves why the U.S should help in improving the livelihoods of people from other nations. The answer to this is that Americans, as human beings should feel some obligation to help in the improvement of other people’s lives.14 Common humanity is a bond that exists beyond the U.S borders and is only limited by the international system’s competitive nature. The U.S’s concern over the rights of people in other nations through legislative and non-legislative efforts to relieve overseas suffering, poverty and hunger is an indicator that Americans have accepted the tie of universal humanity and felt a little obligated to the foreign community. The fact that promoting democracy helps to improve the standards of living in the democracies makes it effective to be promoted by the U.S as a sign of acceptance of the universal tie of humanity. Criticisms. The promotion of democracy by the U.S to other countries has, on numerous occasions, been associated with good (Larry 31); with no concrete opposition coming from the idea or rather, the reasoning behind the opposition of democracy spread can be questioned. Below are the arguments against the U.S attempts of spreading democracy to other countries around the world. The Democratization Process Increases the Threat of War. Critics argue that promoting democracy increases the chances of war occurring since the nations involved in transitions to democracies are usually to have war.15 This is because new democracies with weak democratic institutions have new leaders who compete for support via playing the national card and look for global scapegoat in case of failure. This argument is irrelevant as it suggests that any political change may cause instability. In addition, new democracies can easily deal with old elites who are threatened by democratization. This can be by simply offering them golden parachutes to safety where they retain a share of their wealth and stay out of jail thus preventing war.16 Promotion of Elections may be Harmful. There are claims that democratic elections have little positive impacts. This implies that electoral democracy is irrelevant in many countries hence there is no need for the U.S to keep spreading democracy.17 The process of democratic elections in multiethnic countries may result in ethnic wars (Mancur 572-573). This argument is irrelevant since election holding in any activity means closing the door for authoritarian leaders and development of liberal values, making the principle of free and fair election of leaders an international norm. When this norm is achieved internationally, it means the U.S would have achieved in maintaining world peace. This is evidenced by the fact that Chile’s Pinochet and Philippines’ Marcos were able to step down owing to the increased international belief that each democracy should freely and fairly elect its leaders. Conclusion Democracies usually perform better economically over a long time because they have liberal market economies. As earlier noted, these market economies have a tendency towards long-term economic development (Russett 123). The argument presented in this paper is robust enough to support U.S’s spread of democracy across the globe. There is mixed evidence regarding democratization’s role in war increment although suitable policies can be developed to deal with such risks. Recent criticisms against the U.S spread of democracy have not been convincing for it is clear that- from the above argument that international democracy will be of much benefit to the U.S. This does not, however, answer the many questions Americans are asking themselves regarding the U.S’s attempts to make its democracy international. Some of these questions include the policies the U.S should adopt and in what circumstances should they be adopted, how the U.S should promote democracy to other nations and whether the U.S should promote/encourage democracy in other countries or should democracy be home made. If researchers intend to carry on with more research about why the U.S should reach other countries and promote democracy, then the above questions should be on their lists ready to be addressed. The U.S should not blindly focus on democracy spreading and exclude all other goals but its spread will ensure the advancement of the U.S and global interests in general. It will never be easy for the U.S and other players to promote or help other countries to become democratic but increased efforts internationally can be the big difference. The United States can promote democracy. Works Cited Fareed, Z. "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 76, No. 6, 1997. Print. Larry, D. "Promoting Democracy," Foreign Policy, No. 87, 1992. Print. Mancur, O. "Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development," American Political Science Review, Vol. 87, No. 3, 1993. Print. Rummel, R.J. Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1997. Print. Russett, B. Controlling the Sword: The Democratic Governance of National Security (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990. Print. Bibliography Collins, J. "World Hunger: A Scarcity of Food or a Scarcity of Democracy?" in Michael T. Klare and Daniel C. Thomas, eds., World Security: Challenges for a New Century, 2nd edition, New York: St. Martin''s, 1994. Print. Doyle, W.M. "Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs," Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 12, Nos. 3 and 4. Reprinted in Brown, Lynn-Jones, and Miller, eds., Debating the Democratic Peace, 1983. Print. Fareed, Z. "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 76, No. 6, 1997. Print. Forsythe, D.P. "Democracy, War, and Covert Action," Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 29, No. 4 ,1992. Print. Goldstone, J. A. "The Coming Chinese Collapse," Foreign Policy, No. 99, 1995. Print. Larry, D. "Promoting Democracy," Foreign Policy, No. 87, 1992. Print. Mancur, O. "Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development," American Political Science Review, Vol. 87, No. 3, 1993. Print. Muravchik, J. Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America''s Destiny. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 1991. Print. Rummel, R.J. Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1997. Print. Russett, B. Controlling the Sword: The Democratic Governance of National Security (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990. Print. Russett, B. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Print. Thompson, R.W. "Democracy and Peace: Putting the Cart Before the Horse?" International Organization, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1996. Print. Waltz, K.N. "America as Model for the World? A Foreign Policy Perspective." PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1991. Print. Notes Read More