APPLIED PROJECT
1
ISS 512
Module 1 Paper
October 13, 2020
There are many unique challenges and issues in the modern system of global politics, as countries strive for the highest levels of state security, safety, and prosperity. Countries from diverse regions worldwide use state authority and resources to advance trade agreements, enhance human rights, build greater technologies and military capabilities, promote optimal citizen health, and spark sustainable economic development. However, there is no agreed upon universal policy, structure, or government institution for achieving these complex, multi-layered goals. One trend among wealthy states in the global system, which gained steam throughout various stages in the 20th century is encouraging and promoting democracy worldwide, especially in developing, strongly authoritarian regions of the world. The United States is a primary example of a powerful, wealthy, democratic country, which frequently uses its’ power and influence in the global system, and foreign policy initiatives to advance democratic efforts and projects abroad. However, there is no definitive proof that democracy is a morally superior government and political structure or lifestyle compared to autocratic societies. American state actors and government officials should not insist or coerce other sovereign nations in the global system to accept and adopt democratic governance institutions, systems, or structures because they are not necessarily better than autocracies.
In today’s modern, globalized system, many wealthy, advanced Western democracies perceived democracy to be a collective good enjoyed by diverse countries, cultures, and citizens. However, there are masses of nations, communities, and citizens, which do not view democracy as a universal good. Because of this, it is wrong for a powerful country like the United States to force democratic principles, ideas, institutions, and policies on no-democracies in the international system. Supporters of democracy claim that building, practicing, and safeguarding democratic ideals and institutions enhances quality of life and creates opportunity for upward social mobility for all. The idea is that embracing and engaging in democracy raises the levels of inclusion, engagement, and activity required for society, the economy, and government to operate efficiently. Democratic states also prefer democratic governance because they argue that such structures and processes generate greater levels of communication and interdependence, which is vital for mutual prosperity.
Some acclaimed theorists like Sen claim that democracies play pivotal roles for building and enhancing positive social and human well-being. One argument is that democracies benefit human beings by boosting human intrinsic value (Sen, 1999). Political freedoms are said to be a component of human freedom. Accessing and utilizing civil and political rights allows citizens live good and connected lives. The belief is that denying citizens opportunities and pathways for political participation is a significant deprivation (Sen, 1999). However, this type of perspective is based on the idea that democracy is a universal value, when in actuality it is not. There is no definitive evidence or proof that each individual or global citizen is interested in politics or engaging in a political processes, activities, and decision-making. Democracies are demanding systems, and not considered mechanical conditions used in isolation (Sen, 1999). However, not all citizens and cultures prefer or are willing to engage in such a taxing and tedious system.
Understanding the critical components of a democracy is necessary to argue against powerful countries like the United States imposing it’s democratic will against other sovereign countries in the global system. Democratic systems and political cultures generally encompass democratic institutions, voting, respect for election results, transparency, legal entitlements, and the safeguarding of liberties and freedoms (Sen, 1999). Most modern democracies also guarantee freedom of speech and discussion, and the free flow of uncensored news, content, and information. Each of these processes are integral components of citizens being able to access information to choose and vote for candidates to represent their respective needs and policy preferences. The goal of these democracies is to create and enhance greater levels of social and economic development via inclusion, and participation from masses of citizens. However, not all democracies are created equal because some countries claim to carry free and fair elections, but actually hold rigged elections like Russia.
Democracy is also not a universal value because many countries in the global system in regions like the Middle East and Gulf prosper socially and economically in autocratic systems and cultures. Citizens in many of these countries do not experience high levels of disagreement, chaos, and instability, and live productive and satisfying lives. In fact, for decades scholars and theorists made the argument that autocratic systems are better designed for greater levels of economic development, growth, and stability (Sen, 1999). There is a history of several countries in the Asia regarded as disciplinarian and authoritarian states, which experienced greater levels of economic growth and development compared to modern democracies. Some of these countries include, Singapore, South Korea, and most recently China. In fact, in the 21st century China benefitted from some of the highest rates of economic growth in the world, far outpacing the United States. This shows that increased political rights and levels of inclusion and citizen engagement associated with democracies are not necessary features for impressive economic growth and development. Rapid advancements in technology and innovation in this age of globalization are also leading to faster, broader, economic growth paces in autocracies in comparison to democracies in the current global climate as well.
Another reason that wealthy democracies like the United States should not force democracy on autocratic sovereign countries is because of cultural differences and preferences. Not all countries in the global system are considered individualistic like the United States. Many collectivist countries in Asian, Middle East, Gulf, and Africa do not necessarily value high degrees of individual rights and autonomy. Citizens often prefer obeying authority and respecting tradition, culture, and history. For example, Asians actually prefer discipline and not greater levels of political freedom, and are often reluctant to embrace democratic values and principles (Sen, 1999). The same goes for many wealthy countries in regions like the Gulf in countries like Qatar and the UAE in which leaders are selected based on a long line of hereditary history and tradition. Citizens in these countries place their trust and faith in Emirs, who possess a documented history of effective family leadership, decision-making, and experience. They are not necessarily interested in capturing greater amounts of civil liberties and rights, which undermine authority and challenge key aspects of cultural history. Finally, granting political rights and liberties to citizens and cultures, which are not accustomed to making key decisions and participating in the system could be disastrous for the development and advancement of the country as whole.
Powerful countries like the United States should not use their influence and standing in the international system to advance democracy on autocratic countries. First, there is not proof that democracy leads to better social and economic outcomes for countries as autocracies carry a history of growing faster and performing better than democracies. Secondly, many countries and cultures are not interested in seizing more political rights and freedoms because they value their history, culture, and heritage. Transforming into a democracy is not something preferred by masses of citizens and communities, which prefer disciplined and obedience to authority. Finally, forcing citizens to adhere to democratic ideas and principles, who lack experience, skill, and knowledge such demanding systems is morally wrong, and carries the potential to destroy social, political, and economic institutions in autocratic countries and regions.
References
Sen, A. (1999). Democracy as a universal value. Journal of Democracy, 10(3), 3-17.