Democracy - Miracle Drug?

One of the shifting reasons for the Bush Administration's foray into Iraq was to spread democracy to the Middle East in order to liberate the people there and provide security for all, especially Americans. Clearly, the White House and other supporters of the war believe that democracy is some sort of cure-all for the world's ills and that spreading our enlightened form of government will facilitate the conversion of the planet into a Democratic utopia. If that sounds a bit simplistic it's because it is. The reality of this strategy is that it is flawed on various levels. First of all, is it valid to impose Western style democracy on non-Western cultures, and will it even work? Secondly, even if democracy were to take hold in a particular country, there is no evidence that it would guarantee security for anyone - see the reaction of various Western nations to the democratic election of Hamas in the Palestinian parliament. Stating that democracy in the Middle East would guarantee American security is a baseless claim.

Let's review the issues with regime change and imposing Western style democracy on non-Western cultures. There are a couple of facets to this:

1. Can Western style democracy be successful in a society/culture with no democratic tradition?
2. Should Western societies even attempt to transform other societies in their own image?

The first question has no definitive answer as it is more rhetorical in nature, however if one views societies as evolutionary entities, one can begin to fathom the possible difficulties in imposing the traditions of one society on another. It's no secret that Western society and culture are very different than their Middle Eastern counterparts. Each society has evolved and continues to evolve based on unique experiences and changes. And of course, many members of each society believe that their culture and traditions are superior to all others, when in actuality, societies are not better than each other - they are simply different. Societies are analogous to people. Let's say that Person A and Person B represent two different societies. Person A and Person B are unique individuals with unique experiences and perhaps some shared ones. Each of them has self confidence and belief. If Person A and Person B were your children, would you blindly treat them the same or would you recognize that they were unique and special individuals? What might be good for Person A may not be good for Person B, and vice versa. Should Person A try to make Person B in his own image? I'm sure that most people would agree that individual identity is an important part of being human and that we as people don't want to lose that uniqueness.

The same thought process should be applied to societies. There are many world cultures that have evolved over the centuries and they should be respected as much as we respect our own. While democracy in various forms extends back several centuries in Western society, other world societies have no experience with it at all. In this respect, Western society could be viewed as a mature adult in terms of democratic traditions while Middle Eastern society would be a child in the same respect. Is imposing a Western style democracy on a Middle Eastern society equivalent to teaching Quantum Physics to a 5 year-old and expecting him to understand it right away? Might it not be more prudent to treat Middle Eastern society as an equal to our own, just different? Honestly, I'm not sure what that means in practical terms, however I think the pervasive point of view in America is that our society is far superior and more enlightened than other world cultures. That's a dangerous viewpoint when determining any foreign policy.

If we view societies as unique, evolutionary entities, should societies adhere to some non-interference directive (ala the Prime Directive in Star Trek) when interacting? In some respects this kind of non-interference already takes place with nuclear non-proliferation being an example. Yet, the United States has launched a preemptive war in Iraq in order to re-make that country's government more like our own. Is that really a good idea? Not only is it highly questionable that the United States has the right to interfere in Iraq's affairs in such a way, especially given that it did not represent a threat, but it is arrogant to assume that said interference would be welcome by the Iraqi people. In today's global society, some may feel that the United States has the right to preemptively act in the interests of its security. Yet, that very attitude exudes arrogance as it places the security needs of the United States above those of all other nations. Is that the message we are sending to the world? We are more important than the rest of the planet? It certainly seems so. Perhaps we should consider how we would feel if another country invaded us and began to alter our way of life. I have a feeling that a vast majority of Americans wouldn't react very favorably to that.

At this point in Iraq, the ability for the new democratic regime to succeed is questionable. The US invasion was undertaken with seemingly very little understanding of the cultural differences between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, and now the country seems embroiled in an all-out civil war. However, even if democracy somehow takes hold in Iraq, it won't necessarily be a government favorable to the United States (unless it's a puppet government). Wouldn't it be ironic to invade a country, affect regime change, set up a democratic government and then watch the country turn against us? If that's what ends up happening in Iraq, then we deserve it. Perhaps it will force our foreign policy experts to examine whether democracy really is a miracle drug for the world and whether the United States has the right to dispense it.