There are those who believe that economic liberty leads directly to development and prosperity. There are those who believe that prosperity leads to increasing political freedom and the one man, one vote system (i.e., representative democracy). Economic freedom and political freedom are Western ideals. With the further encouragement of free trade, some theorists imagine we can realize the brotherhood of man through a process of "globalization." In theory, the free movement of goods and peoples will gradually negate historical, cultural and religious differences. The American-sponsored attempt to promote democracy in the Middle East is partly based on beliefs and theories of this kind. Regardless of race or religion, it is assumed that the man-in-the-street prefers peace to war, freedom to absolutism and economic opportunity to grinding poverty. If the needs of the average person are to be respected by those in political authority, then those in authority must be accountable at the ballot box.
On Saturday, Nov. 12, a U.S.-sponsored Middle East development and democracy summit broke up "in rancor." An attempt at a "declaration of principles" failed when Egypt "insisted on language that would have given Arab governments greater control" over charities and "good-government organizations." To encourage economic development and democracy, a $100 million fund was established (to which the U.S. contributed $50 million). According to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "For democracy to achieve lasting and sustainable success, it must also be nurtured by a vibrant economy and an ever-growing middle class."
There are two problems with the administration's push for democracy in the Middle East. (1) The use of government-generated money to stimulate economic growth in underdeveloped nations is almost always counterproductive. Enterprises funded by political institutions are not, by necessity, based on a sure sense of profitability. What is founded on largesse proves dependent on continued largesse. After this fashion, without malice of forethought, chains of dependency are forged. (2) Furthermore, if democracy were established in a given Arab state, the voters would eventually elect Islamic fundamentalists or national socialist warmongers (who promise to drive Israel into the sea).
The course of Arab democracy seems quite predictable - even more predictable than previous democratic fiascos. We know that democracy in Weimar Germany led to Hitlerism. Democracy in Venezuela has led to the rise of communism under the left-populist banner of Hugo Chavez. Democracy in South Africa has led to a steady economic unraveling. Democracy in the former Soviet Union (if real at all) has given us the KGB/mafia regime of Vladimir Putin. Democracy isn't always the answer, though we act as though it is. Perhaps, as Alexis de Tocqueville suggested, democracy will eventually succeed in every country; but not immediately, and not without desperate shifts of fortune over a course of decades. We might ask ourselves if the global economy can withstand the shocks that are bound to follow a series of democratic revolutions around the oil fields that supply the world with life-giving energy.
The conservatives in the United States, tending now to support the Republican Party (and to a lesser extent President Bush), trace their intellectual lineage to Edmund Burke and John Adams - thinkers who distrusted democracy. Ironically, President Bush's foreign policy is radical and Jeffersonian. There doesn't seem to be a trace of Burke or Adams in him. For he aims at promoting democratic revolution, starting with Iraq. It is not something Burke or Adams would have condoned. Furthermore, the one-party states and monarchies of the region are not liable to go along with this program. But if economic and diplomatic pressures bear fruit, a process similar to that of the French Revolution could begin to unfold. If this process is true to form, the emerging democracies will appear to succeed. After a time, pent up human passions will bubble to the surface. Islamic and socialist demagogues will rise to power. Islam is not a democratic religion founded by those who value individual rights. As Max Weber once explained, the religion of Mohammed is "fundamentally political in its orientation.... A merchant, he was first a leader of pietistic bourgeois conventicles in Mecca, until he realized more and more clearly that the ideal external basis for his missionizing would be provided by the organization of the interests of the warrior clans in the acquisition of booty." As a leading sociologist and dissector of world religions, Weber noted: "The enterprise of the prophet is closer to that of the popular leader (demagogos) or political publicist...." As John Adams repeatedly warned, the perversion of democracy is the work of every demagogue. If Islam is political demagoguery in religious guise, then any attempt at democracy in the Muslim world will end in the perversion of democracy.
One might begin with the "rule of law" as the right path to political reform in the Middle East. But what if "the law" is Islamic instead of post-Enlightenment English or American law? The Bush administration's policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East encourages no discussion of these and other difficulties. In fact, such discussion cannot occur because anything resembling a Western criticism of Islam would destroy the administration's policy. And yet, the policy itself hopes to overcome radical Islam through democracy.
The Western liberal, as politician, is no longer a careful student of his own political traditions. Influenced by subtle egalitarian and rationalist doctrines, he dismisses reality in favor of irresponsible utopian schemes. Though he would consciously deny any belief in an "ideal state," he unconsciously acts as though he knows what the ideal state is (for every people and all time). At the heart of the West's democracy ideology is a fundamental failure of self-knowledge. Such failures are always dangerous. In the present instance, the political stability of the Middle East is at stake. If the push for democracy destabilizes the entire region (as Iraq is presently destabilized), the blowback could destabilize the United States. The West's dependence on Middle East oil, under these circumstances, may be fatal to democratic institutions everywhere. Not only is political liberty at stake, but economic freedom is also at risk as socialist politicians prepare to exploit the inevitable collapse of administration policy to the detriment of capitalism and property rights. A vicious cycle of economic contractions would certainly follow.
Now look at the larger context. Civilization has given birth to weapons of mass destruction. If wars continue to break out, if political conflict continues to fester, the mass use of nuclear and biological weapons is inevitable. Everyone can see the truth of this proposition, and so we struggle against this black fate. We are therefore desperate in our search for solutions. The punishing ordeal of the Second World War taught Europe to seek "unity in diversity," to distrust weapons of war. Adopting liberal principles of democracy and free trade, Europe and America have been groping their way toward "real peace." But real peace is utopianism. Political liberals have yet to grasp the horrifying way in which the law of unintended consequences applies to every utopian venture. After World War I the "war to end all wars" was followed by the most terrible war of all. Just as the "war on crime" heralds an increase in the crime rate, the "war on poverty" encourages poverty. By this same logic, the "war on terror" encourages terrorism. It does so because its overall strategy is based on a desperate utopianism.
Those who want to avoid World War III seek the "brotherhood of man." But their policy will only exacerbate the war of "all against all." Capitalism and democracy are seen as tools for achieving this brotherhood. Policies are crafted, rhetoric is forged and armies are unleashed. But the project cannot end well because the conception behind the project doesn't respect very real differences that separate one culture from another, or one religion from another.
According to Aristotle, "Aristophanes said that lovers ... are eager to grow into each other and become one instead of two. In such an event one or the other must perish, if not both." The attempt of nations and peoples to grow into one another cannot end differently. What is unique and strong and vibrant about a nation or people must be destroyed in a process of gross homogenization. What makes us special and individual is uniquely ours and should not be surrendered in a vain attempt to become a diffuse nullity. Globalism not only asks the Arab to merge with the European, but the European to dissolve into the Arab. "In such an event, one or the other must perish, if not both."
In all of this, which civilization is more committed to cultural suicide?
