So, on the first day of 2008 it happened again, just like last time – an email at dawn from that fellow at BBC World Service:
Happy New Year! Today’s programme is about democracy vs. stability. Should democratic values ever be compromised to maintain stability in a country? Kenya and Pakistan are two current examples. Bush seems to have come round to the idea that stability can be more important sometimes, like in Pakistan. What are your views? Would you be interested in taking part?
Well, after a sip or two of black coffee and lighting the first pipe of the year, it all resolved to a fairly interesting question – Should democratic values ever be compromised to maintain stability in a country? So I replied to the London producer of “International Have Your Say” that I’d be glad to be a guest again, and grabbed the Los Angeles Times from the doorstep. I had just started skimming it when the phone rang – Ben on the line from London.
He’s a good fellow – or a regular bloke if you must. We chatted about the New Year and hangovers and such, and I told him broadly where I stood on the issue – something about how we had a made a bit of a hash of things in all our efforts in promoting democracy, mainly because the current administration had a childish and simplistic view of what constituted democracy. It’s not just voting – you have to have other things in place. A relatively free press is useful, so people can figure out who says what about what they would do if elected, even if you have to read between the lines as slants and distortions are part of the media game. And you sort of need a tradition of believing that elections matter, mostly a tradition of being somewhat a good loser – if your candidate does not win you understand, decide you’ll spend the winner’s term in office being a pain-in-the-ass critic and embarrassing them, and do whatever you can to win next time. You don’t burn down the house; that is, you don’t riot in the streets and try to take over anyway. You work the system. You don’t try to abolish it in your fear and anger. You assume the system matters. And there’s the small matter of the necessary stability – it helps if there are not political or sectarian murders left and right, daily, that there’s power and water and trash collection and a sewage system of some sort so cholera and the rest aren’t an issue. It is hard for elections to matter much if everyone is cowering in fear in their homes in the dark, hungry and sick.
We ignored those things in Iraq. People voted, eventually. We got a mess. Against the pleading of our ally Israel we insisted on those elections in Palestine, and those folks elected the wrong people – a group we and Israel had long designated a major terror organization. Oops. We arranged for that Bhutto woman to return to Pakistan, to run against Musharraf, thinking the two of them would have to share power and everything would be fine. We got a mess. Our ally and one of the few stable nations in Africa, Kenya, held their elections, and there was so much obvious fraud that Kenya disintegrated. Drat. It does seem there is a bit more to this than just voting. The thought was that we ought to have thought of democracy in a systems way – it’s not just voting, but an array of activities, institutions, traditions, assumptions and all that.
None of this is very original – many have made those points. I didn’t tell Ben, but it’s the old mistake in formal logic when you work with the definition of something – mistaking a single necessary condition of definition (in this case voting) for a sufficient condition (there’s much more to the definition of democracy). Or as the non-philosophers say, yeah, you certainly need that one thing – can’t do without it – but there’s a lot more to it than just that, you lazy and simplistic fool.
So the man from London and I batted such things about and he seemed pleased. He did warn me that he’d get to the American guest in the second half of the show, and he might not get to me, and not to be disappointed if he didn’t. I said fine. I had my coffee and the Times. No problem. And it was two hours to air – so I had time to gather my thoughts, if they were requested.
Of course having a good friend who was one of the founders of CNN and still in deep with them is useful at such times, so it was trading emails with Rick, the News Guy in Atlanta – technical matters on how to solve the feedback problems that made the last BBC discussion such a bother. It was time to find an old phone with a wire to plug in – time to dig about in the back closet. The cheap wireless thing from Target messed everything up last time – it’s hard to sound insightful when you sound like Daffy Duck in an echo chamber. Rick had other advice about feedback loops and such.
Done – and time passed, with no call from London. Rick in Atlanta asked about that and wished me good luck. I shot back:
It’s okay. Tobias warned me that they may not get to me, and if they don’t call in the next fifteen minutes I can continue New Years Day as planned - lots of nothing. I did find an old-fashioned phone in the closet - a small black Swiss thing shaped like a small modernistic paddle, very chic - and plugged that in and tested it. Oh well. The year starts with a bust.
And so it goes. Rick then said it was just as well:
It looked like the question today was whether it was ever okay to sacrifice democracy for security, probably in regards to Pakistan. That’s a tough one; not sure what I would say without giving it a lot of thought first.
No matter - the BBC never called. I had already told Tobias that wouldn’t break my heart. It didn’t. But I told Rick I would have said this:
As for Pakistan, we were doing fine with the dictator who came to power in a military coup in 1999 - Pervez the Marginally Useful - the fellow who took all our money and didn’t do a hell of a lot with it, which was probably just what was called for. Things weren’t good, but they weren’t that bad - things were relatively quiet, for the region. Like we needed another country in turmoil? But as his time was running out, and it looked like people rather hated this guy and would like to see him go, we had no choice but to chat up democracy as what would be good there. It’s what we do.
Of course he changed the rules to keep himself in power, then arrested the Supreme Court and declared martial law in November, so Rice came up with that half-assed plan where Benazir Bhutto would return, win lots of votes, and he could still be president, and she would be prime minister. That was never going to work. And it didn’t. Our careful plan to engineer something like a democracy there was not only presumptuous - another “this is how it should be” dream, just like handing Iraq to Chalabi and getting out quick - it was a fool’s errand. When you tell people that “this is how it should be” you know what happens - they nod and do what they want - unless you offer magnificent rewards (positive reinforcement, as Skinner would have it), or brutal, massive retaliation for their lack of cooperation.
Should there be a democracy there? That might be nice, but now it would not serve our strategic interests. It’s kind of beside the point. “Democracy” and strategic interests are not even vaguely related, and never have been, even if we now hold that they are one in the same, always have been, always will be, and God says so. That’s an even odder foreign policy concept than preventative, prophylactic war to eliminate hypothetical threats as a legitimate use of state power.
Democracy? You never know what you’ll get - see Palestine. This political neo-neo-Platonism - the Platonic ideal here being Jeffersonian Democracy - is only good for stump speeches and badgering stodgy realists. It’ll be the death of us all.
Rick offered this:
There are the separate questions, of course, concerning democracy and all that being, on the one hand, good for Pakistan, and on the other, good for us.
The second question aside, I’m not even convinced that democracy is good for Pakistan itself. Those people seem to have internalized the idea that the military has the right to run the country whenever it has a mind to, always being able to make the case that the democratic process was, at any given moment, delivering too much “corruption.” Those Pakistanis need to rewrite their constitution, making it clear that the military takes a back seat to civilian authority. But as I said, I’m not even sure that would work.
But as for all our present-day talk of “Jeffersonian Democracy?” All his life, Jefferson hated the word “democracy” and it didn’t really take root in this country until a few years after he died. He also had little very little to do with framing the national government that eventually because quite democratic, since he was in France when all that stuff happened - and, if anything, he was mostly against the Constitution, at least until someone added a Bill of Rights to it. Sure, he started a political party that eventually took that name, but when he started it, it was known as the “Republican” party.
Maybe what we really should be talking about is “Jeffersonian Republicanism.”
But it turned out that none of that mattered, as the BBC framed things a bit differently than they were framed in the email:
The election commission in Pakistan has said that it “looks impossible” to hold elections as scheduled on 8 January, because the violent protests after the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto have directly affected the organisation of the poll.
The commission will consult political parties before making a final decision on Wednesday, according to its spokesman, Kanwar Dilshad.
The main opposition parties say any delay will help President Pervez Musharraf’s party and are insisting the poll should go ahead as planned.
Benazir Bhutto’s husband and her son, now the co-chairmen of her Pakistan People’s Party, said this would be a tribute to her memory and the cause of democracy for which she died.
When do you think elections should be held? What does the death of Benazir Bhutto mean for the future of Pakistan?
That’s a different question entirely. Ben prepped more for the high-level issues. This was at the painfully practical level and not that useful. Anyway, later in the day the Associated Press mooted part of it all with this – Pakistan Elections to Be Delayed a Month. And that was that.
You can listen to what was said on the BBC somewhere on their podcasts page or read some of the comments:
Total comments: 15,685
Published comments: 8,887
Rejected comments: 917
Samples:
None of the Bhuttos are innocent, how does a family become so wealthy when people around are living in slums. Corruption is rife and maybe Pervez Musharraf should put on his uniform again and keep the country from falling into the hands of militants that will sacrifice the country. How can a nineteen-year-old run a political party never mind a country? Only someone in authority can keep Pakistan falling like Afghanistan did to the Taliban, and that person must be someone like Pervez Musharraf. - Alan, Wigan
The PPP was created by the Bhutto’s as a family political estate not an open voting mass platform. It’s Bilawal’s family inheritance. All those that claimed to have voted for Bilawal Bhutto are mere self-enslaved Feudal servants. It’s a colonial caste mindset that Pak inherited, practiced by people and its institutions. Sadly, it plagues even our so called intellectuals who can’t look past glorified names and their selfish means. With a self-inflicted culture I don’t see them improving Pak in anyway. - Syed Sarfraz Ali, Toronto, Canada
I request USA and the West that not to interfere in Pakistan so openly. USA has destroyed our country since 1st Afghan war. And still working to eliminate the popular leadership of Pakistan. Please leave us. Please do not support people who have no backing in the masses. We have now danger in three provinces out of a total of four. This is just because of bad intentions of the USA towards Pakistan. Plz. support the institutions not the persons. - Syed Abdullah, Karachi
Look at the things that are going on in Pakistan and Kenya, these are the sort of things we are importing into our country and will be commonplace in the UK in 20 or 30-years time. If you do not like something you can light a bonfire in the street, burn down and loot a few shops, set fire to a government building. What is the point of trying to promote democracy on a people who will never accept anything but their own self interest? Maybe colonialism was the best answer. - Gus Greaves, Irvinestown
What I still don’t understand is why the West still supports Dictator Pervez Musharraf? The more I read and see the news about the Dictator’s and his minions’ actions about Benazir Bhutto’s death, the more I start believing he and his minions are responsible of Bhutto’s death. Musharraf has a horrible history regarding to terrorism. Musharraf supported the Taleban and Al-Queda in Afghanistan, and now there in Pakistan, he does nothing to eliminate them. He also supported terrorism against India. - Benjamin, Texas
The queen is dead; long live the king except there is no country to rule. Bilawal is now the 19-year old, selected not elected, Pakistani champion of democracy. How can democracy work in a country where dynasties rule and hungry people vote for symbols (bicycle, arrow) in fear? Pakistan needs a nation-builder, such as, Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore and Mahatir Mohammad of Malaysia. Democratically elected? Bilawal’s ascension is proof that the concept fails. God give us a firm and sincere dictator. - Asdaq Wahid, Manhattan Beach, California, United States
Strange to see the “great defenders of democracy” obsessed with creating dynasties (Kennedys, Nehru/Gandhis, Bhuttos, add Bushes, Clintons) and electors following suit. Maybe a somber observation for New Year’s Eve, but I will quote Charles Maurras (a French theorist of absolute monarchy) rejecting checks and balances on the king’s power: “Absolute monarchy is tempered by regicide.” Now put it in the present context - food for thought for 2008. - Marc R, Paris
There was not much of anything on our promoting one characteristic of democracy, voting, as if that’s all there is to it. That’s fine. They were discussing something else.
And sometimes, to understand what’s really up with the assignation that changed everything, one should turn to experts, like Walid Phares:
It was a war of ideas that the Taliban and their ilk feared the most. It is one thing for the radicals to measure themselves in comparison with the military’s authoritarianism. But it is another thing to be blasted ideologically by a woman who would dominate Pakistan’s politics. By jihadi standards it was unbearable to see Lady Benazir seizing the premiership of the executive power. A staunch modernist and a genuine Muslim, she would have been their worst nightmare. With her in power, forget about the Talibanization: There would be no suppression of women and no brutalization of minorities. There would be fierce empowerment of civil society. This is why the combined “war room” of al Qaeda, the neo-Taliban and the Pakistani jihadists decided to eliminate her.
And there’s some new evidence that the military was involved in the assassination. And Musharraf has stopped trying to deny she was shot at close range. We were messing where we shouldn’t have been messing. Things are not simple – we just hope there are, and a bit of voting will make things all better.
And as for Kenya, that election was almost certainly rigged, but contesting it violently seems to be tearing Kenya apart on tribal lines and undermining its recent progress. But not contesting it is scary:
The head of a European Union team of observers, Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, promptly spoke about deep misgivings concerning the counting process. Diplomats in Nairobi, the capital, pointed the finger at the Kikuyu old guard, men who had feared that they would lose their fortunes if Mr Odinga had made it into State House. Even if Mr Kibaki’s cronies are innocent of charges of vote rigging, he will have no national mandate: outside of the Kikuyu lands, Mr Kibaki was soundly beaten across the country, including in Nairobi.
But then a legal challenge could be endless and get nowhere. One Kenyan blogger saw it coming:
The harmless grandfather seated inside State House was asked by a BBC journalist three days ago whether he would hand over power peacefully if he lost the elections. His reply was in Swahili and so rude that many Kenyans reading this will still not believe that it is Mwai Kibaki. He said: Wacha Kuniuliza swali ya Upumbavu. (Stop asking me a stupid question.)
It’s civil war and again we didn’t see it coming:
The American State Department, having first congratulated Mr Kibaki on his victory, hastily withdrew this accolade and said: “We do have serious concerns, as I know others do, about irregularities in the vote count.”
Oops.
Meanwhile the country explodes. Kenya’s bloggers are busy countering the government’s media blackout. Kenyan Pundit, Ory, writes: “This is now officially a police state.”
Menacingly, the Kibaki government’s patent election-rigging has split the military, opening up the prospect of civil war – “Planning an alternative inauguration can be interpreted as treason which would explain the security forces’ heavy approach (if this is true). During the press conference Raila introduced an army Major who stated that the armed forces are behind Raila. Our military is divided.”
But the US sent congrats to the men who stole a democratic election.
However unqualified some of the candidates in this election, could any of them be more incompetent in foreign affairs than the Bush administration?
Sigh – some questions answer themselves. And there were the fifty people burned alive in a church where they had sought refuge from the widening anarchy. One Kenyan blogger practically weeps:
I feel that the people of Kenya have been completely robbed of everything they have gained over the last forty years. We lacked few things but at least we were generally a fair people. I feel that the change we thought we had in 2005 was just an illusion…
I feel that Kenyans have been robbed of something that can never be valued - their electoral process.
It is actually the whole system, and the Red Cross is calling the post-election meltdown a national disaster - thousands are now displaced from their homes and all the rest.
But it should have been so easy. Vote and things get better. Yeah, right.
This is, of course, not to imply that those who run our country are lazy and simplistic fools, pushing this “democracy thing” worldwide without understanding democracy at all. No, it is to say that outright.
Of course one can be more forgiving. See Randy Newman new song – “A Few Words in Defense of Our Country.” Newman and Rick, the News Guy in Atlanta, were neighbors growing up together out here in Pacific Palisades. Rick is happily retired, while Rolling Stone Magazine named Newman’s song the second Best Song of 2007. Here’s a video of Newman performing the song and here are the lyrics. Things aren’t that bad:
I’d like to say a few words
In defense of our country
Whose people aren’t bad nor are they mean
Now the leaders we have
While they’re the worst that we’ve had
Are hardly the worst this poor world has seen
The irony in “not the worst” is pretty thick. Check it out, especially this:
But wait, here’s one, the Spanish Inquisition
They put people in a terrible position
I don’t even like to think about it
Well, sometimes I like to think about it
As for the rest of the world:
Now we don’t want their love
And respect at this point is pretty much out of the question
But in times like these
We sure could use a friend
As for us:
A President once said,
“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”
Now it seems like we’re supposed to be afraid
It’s patriotic in fact and color coded
And what are we supposed to be afraid of?
Why, of being afraid
That’s what terror means, doesn’t it?
That’s what it used to mean
And to the first eight bars of ”Columbia the Gem of the Ocean” there’s this:
You know it pisses me off a little
That this Supreme Court is gonna outlive me
A couple of young Italian fellas and a brother on the Court now too
But I defy you, anywhere in the world
To find me two Italians as tightass as the two Italians we got
And as for the brother
Well, Pluto’s not a planet anymore either
He’s good.
So we’re being led by lazy and simplistic fools. But it’ll be fine, maybe.
We may not be able to bring democracy to the whole world, but we can encourage the illusion. That’s deadly, but what else have we got to offer?
