The Dividends of Supporting Democracy

While it’s obviously debatable what role the United States played in the recent Egyptian revolution, it’s pretty clear that the way the US handled the ouster of a close ally was a pretty strong departure from previous policy towards the Middle East.

And now, after decades of wanting to get rid of Gaddafi (and then about a decade of appeasement), the Libyan people are making incredible sacrifices to do exactly what we failed to do – free themselves from one of the most authoritarian regimes in the world.

I’m not saying Obama can take credit for this development, but unlike previous presidents he certainly hasn’t been a barrier to it, either. What needs to be done now? There’s a few issues that need to be taken care of if this revolution is successful.

1. Immigration. Italy is the most obvious destination for those fleeing the chaos if Gaddafi falls, and it’s uncertain how they will react. The West needs to take a proactive role in ensuring that immigrants are settled humanely. This will not only ease a potential humanitarian crisis, but by making asylum a likelihood for potential refugees, the West can remove one huge incentive for supporters of the regime to take desperate measures to uphold it.

2. Post-revolution economic development. If in five years Libya, Egypt and Tunisia are worse off than they are now, the Democracy brand will be heavily tarnished. We in the West need to make the commercial concessions necessary to build these economies and show that Democracy does in fact pay dividends. Working now with Egypt and Tunisia to rebuild their economies will make Democracy seem far more palatable to those still on the fence.

3. Post-Colonial fears must be addressed. In what is becoming perhaps the most overplayed card in the developing world, Gaddafi warned his people that revolution means an invitation to imperialism, a motif used from Iran to Uganda when the West tries to support human rights. Thus, it is important that future engagement with Egypt and Tunisia be as equals, and economic growth not be dominated by foreign purchases of economic assets in the Maghreb.

If you appreciate an independent voice holding Montana politicians accountable and informing voters, and you can throw a few dollars a month our way, we would certainly appreciate it.

Subscribe to our posts

About the author

The Polish Wolf


Click here to post a comment

Please enter an e-mail address

  • I'm by nature a bit more cynical, I'm afraid. Perhaps I've read too much Chomsky. I just don't have much faith that any administration really wants democracy. We crave stability–and if dictators are anything, it's stable, at least until the end.

    Let's hope that US foreign policy lives up to better ideals in this moment.

  • "it’s stable, at least until the end."

    I think the past decades have shown that 'until the end' is a brutal qualifier. It was Machiavelli who disagreed with Livy and argued that the will of the people is in fact more dependable than the will of an individual. Foreign-supported dictators tend to breed a bitterness in a population that outlives any positive gains we might make while a dictator is in power.

    Moreover, I think it has recently become clear that a Democratic 'enemy' is much less dangerous than an unfriendly dictator. Take Hugo Chavez – he makes a living complaining about the US, but because unlike a dictator (say, Hussein or Gaddafi) he is accountable to his population, he can't just cut off our oil or invade Colombia, because their standard of living depends on him not doing those things. It is my dearest hope that our foreign policy decision makers start to realize this.

  • I'm cynical as well, but it isn't US "foreign policy" that I have no faith in. It's more US corporatist policy. Put short, I have little hope that your third point of 'role' can come to pass.

Latest PostCast

Support Our Work!

Subscribe Via E-mail


Which Democratic Candidate for Governor Do You Support Today?

Send this to a friend