“Should the United States promote democracy around the world?” Stanford alumna Kathleen Brown, a former FSI advisory board member, former Treasurer of the State of California, and current head of public finance (Western region) Goldman Sachs
How are democracy, development,
and the rule of law in transitioning societies
related? How can they be promoted in the world’s most
troubled regions? These were among the provocative
issues addressed by faculty from the Freeman Spogli
Institute’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the
Rule of Law, as part of Stanford Day in Los Angeles on
January 21, 2006. Panelists included Michael A. McFaul,
CDDRL director, associate professor of political science,
and senior fellow, the Hoover Institution; Kathryn Stoner, associate director for research and senior
research associate at CDDRL; and Larry Diamond, coordinator
of CDDRL’s Democracy Program, a Hoover
Institution senior fellow, and founding co-editor of the
Journal of Democracy.
The capstone of a day devoted to “Addressing Global
Issues and Sharing Ideas,” the CDDRL panel was
attended by more than 850 alumni, Stanford trustees,
and supporters as part of the nationwide “Stanford
Matters” series. Moderated by Stanford alumna
Kathleen Brown, a former FSI Advisory Board member,
former treasurer of the State of California, and current
head of public finance (western region) Goldman Sachs,
the panel looked at some of the toughest trouble spots
in the world, including Iraq, Russia, and other parts
of the former Soviet Union.
“Should the United States promote democracy around
the world?” Brown began by asking Center Director
Michael McFaul. “The President of the United States has
said that the United States should put the promotion of
liberty and freedom around the world as a fundamental
policy proposition,” McFaul responded, noting “it is
the central policy question in Washington, D.C., today.”
It is not a debate between Democrats and Republicans,
he continued, but rather between traditional realists,
who look at the balance of power, and Wilsonian
liberals, who argue that a country’s conduct of global
affairs is profoundly affected by whether or not it is a
democracy. The American people, McFaul noted, are
divided on the issue. In opinion polls, 55 percent of
Republicans say we should promote democracy, while
33 percent say no. Among Democrats, only 13 percent
answer unequivocally that the United States should
promote democracy.
“The President of the United States has said that the United States
should put the promotion of liberty and freedom around the world
as a fundamental policy proposition, and it is the central policy
question in Washington, D.C., today.” CDDRL Director Michael McFaulAsserting that the United States should promote
democracy, McFaul offered three major arguments.
First is the moral issue—democracies are demonstrably
better at constraining the power of the state and
providing better lives for their people. Democracies do
not commit genocide, nor do they starve their people.
Moreover, most people want democracy, opinion polls
show. Second are the economic considerations—we
benefit from open societies and an open, liberal world
trade system, which allows the free flow of goods and
capital. Third is the security dimension. Every country
that has attacked the United States has been an autocracy;
conversely, no democracy has ever attacked us. The
transformation of autocracies, including Japan, Germany,
Italy, and the Soviet Union, has made us safer.
It is plausible to believe that the benefits of transformation
in the Middle East will make us more secure,
McFaul argued. “It would decrease the threats these
states pose for each other, their need for weapons, and
the need for U.S. intervention in the region,” he stated.
Democratic transformation would also address a root
cause of terrorism, as the vast majority of terrorists
come from autocratic societies. There are, however,
short-term problems, McFaul pointed out. Free elections
could lead to radical regimes less friendly to the United
States, as they have in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and now in
Palestine. U.S. efforts to promote democracy, he noted,
can actually produce resistance.
Having advanced a positive case, McFaul asked
FSI colleague Stoner-Weiss, “So, how do we promote
democracy?” Stoner-Weiss, also an expert on Russia,
said it is instructive to see how Russia has fallen off
the path to democracy. In 1991, when the Soviet Union
collapsed, it seemed to be an exciting time, rife with
opportunity. “Here was an enemy, a major nuclear
superpower, turning to democracy,” she stated. Despite
initial U.S. enthusiasm, the outcome has not been a
consolidated democracy. Russia, under Vladimir Putin,
is becoming a more authoritarian state, a cause for
concern because it is a nuclear state and a broken
state—with rising rates of HIV and unable to secure
its borders or control the flow of illegal drugs.
“So can we promote democracy?” Stoner-Weiss
asked. The answer is a qualified yes, from Serbia to
Georgia, and the Ukraine to Kyrgyzstan. But Russia has
89 divisions, 130 ethnicities, 11 time zones, and is the
largest landmass in the world, she noted. Moving from a
totalitarian state to a democracy and an open economy
is enormously complicated. As Boris Yeltsin said in
retiring as president on December 31, 1999, “What we
thought would be easy turned out to be very difficult.”
Where is Russia today? It ranks below Cuba on the
human development index; it is moving backward on
corruption; and its economic development is poor,
with 30 percent of the public living on subsistence
income. Under Putin’s regime, private media have come
under pressure, television is totally stated controlled,
elections for regional leaders have been canceled, troops
have remained in Chechnya, and Putin has supported
controversial new legislation to curb civil liberties and
NGO’s operating in Russia.
“How did Russia come to this?” she asked. In retrospect,
the power of the president has been too strong.
Initial “irrational exuberance” in the United States
and Europe about what we could do has given way
to apathy. Under Yeltsin, rule was oligarchical and
democracy disorganized. Putin came to office promising
a “dictatorship of law” to rid the country of corruption.
Yet Russia under Putin, who rose through the KGB
and never held elective office, has become far less democratic. He has severely curtailed civil liberties.
The economy, dependent on oil and natural gas, is not
on a path of sustainable growth.
“What can the United States do?” Stoner-Weiss
asked. We have emphasized security over democracy,
she pointed out, and invested in personal relations with
Russia’s leaders, as opposed to investing in political
process and institutions. We do have important opportunities,
she noted. Russia chairs the G-8 group of
major industrial nations this year, providing major
opportunities for consultation, and wants to join the
World Trade Organization. The United States should
advance an institutional framework to help put Russia
back on a path to democracy, a rule of law, and more
sustainable growth, she argued.
Diamond, an expert on democratic development
and regime change, examined U.S. involvement in the
Middle East, noting that it is difficult to be optimistic
at present. “Democracy is absolutely vital in the battle
against terrorism,” he stated. The United States has
to drain the swamp of rotten governments, lack of
opportunity for participation and the pervasive indignity
of human life. “The dilemma we face,” he pointed out,
“is getting from here to there in the intractable Middle
East.” There is not a single democracy in the Arab
Middle East. This is not because of Islam, but rather
the authoritarian nature of regimes in the region and
the problem of oil.
“Can we promote democracy under these conditions?”
Diamond asked. We need to get smart about it, he
urged, noting that success depends on the particular
context of each country. “If we want to promote democracy,
the first rule is to know the country, its language,
culture, history, and divisions,” he stated. We need to
know, he continued, “who stands to benefit from a
democratic transformation and, conversely, who stands
to lose?” Rulers of these countries need to allow the
space for freedom, for civic and intellectual pluralism,
for open societies and meaningful participation. The
danger is that there could be one person, one vote, one
time. A second rule is that “academic knowledge and
political practice must not be compartmentalized.” “To
succeed,” Diamond stated, “we need to marry academic
theories with concrete knowledge of these countries’
traditions, cultures, practices, and proclivities.”
In the lively question-and-answer session, panelists
were asked, “Under what conditions is it appropriate
to use force to promote democracy?” McFaul answered
that we cannot invade in the name of democracy—we
rebuilt Japan in that name but we did not invade that
nation. We invaded Iraq in the name of national security.
We know how to invade militarily, but still must learn
how to build democracy. Effectiveness in the promotion
of democracy, Diamond pointed out, requires the
exercise of “soft” power—engagement with other
societies, linkages with their schools and associations,
and offering aid to democratic organizations around
the world. Stoner-Weiss concurred, noting that we have
used soft power effectively in some parts of the former
Soviet Union, notably the Ukraine. People-to-people
exchanges definitely help, she added.
To combat Osama bin Laden and the threat of
future attacks in the United States, Diamond stated, we
must halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons. North
Korea and Iran are two of the most important issues
on the global agenda. And we have got to improve
governance in the Middle East in order to reduce the
chances that the states of the region will breed and
harbor stateless terrorists. A democratic Iran is in
our interest, McFaul emphasized. Saudi Arabia must
change as well—the only issue is whether change occurs
with evolution or revolution. Democracy, economic
development, and the rule of law, McFaul concluded,
are inextricably intertwined.
Asked by alumnus and former Stanford trustee
Brad Freeman what needs to happen to re-democratize
Russia, McFaul pointed out that inequality has been a
major issue in Russia—a small portion of the population
controls its wealth and resources and, therefore, the
political agenda and the use of law. Russia has been
ruled by men and needs the rule of institutions, said
Stoner-Weiss. We should insist that Putin allow free
and fair elections, freedom of the press, and freedom of
political expression, and re-focus efforts on developing
the institutions of civil society, she stated.
Reform is a generational issue, McFaul emphasized.
We need to educate and motivate the young so they
can change their country from within. The Stanford
Summer Fellows Program, which brought emerging
leaders from 28 transitioning countries to Stanford
in the program’s inaugural year of 2005, provides an
important venue for upcoming generations to meet
experienced U.S. leaders and others fighting to build
democracies in their own countries. Such exchanges
help secure recognition that building support for
democracy, sustainable development, and the rule of
law is a transnational issue.
