Michael Singh at Foreign Policy (HT - Kate):
In kayaking, you can choose one of two types of stability, but you cannot have both. A flat-bottomed kayak has high "initial stability" -- it appears to ride smoothly in the water, with little rocking back and forth. But it has low "final stability" -- in rough seas, it tends to quickly and catastrophically capsize. An angled-bottom kayak is just the opposite. With low initial stability, it takes more effort to guide and is prone to constant shifts from side to side. But these kayaks are faster and more efficient, and their high final stability means that they remain upright in stormy seas, and can recover even when turned nearly upside down.
Things are not so different with democracies and dictatorships. Democracy is messy -- look at the United States, where in the last five years alone we have experienced swings from right to left and back again, and where political discourse can often be raucous. Dictatorships, on the other hand, often possess a superficial stability -- until they reach the tipping point, which often comes more quickly than expected. Such was the case in Tunisia, which seemed an oasis of calm until a small spark quickly grew to consume the longstanding rule of Zine el Abidine Ben Ali.
Dictatorships lack the self-righting mechanisms and institutions which provide democracies with their deep stability. Free expression, free assembly, multiple and accountable political parties, free and fair elections, and independent courts -- all of these form the vital structure of a democracy and provide an outlet for people's grievances. In a dictatorship, people are denied these outlets and anger simmers beneath the surface, occasionally bursting through society's calm veneer in violent fashion.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Ah, but the short-term instabilities of democracies may be a greater problem than long-term instability of a non-democracy.
ReplyDeleteConsider education. As I understand, United States government under George Bush passed the No Child Left Behind Act. To see the full extent of this legislation's success, there will be a waiting period going beyond the first twelve years of school and into college or a job. George Bush already left office before those twelve years of his legislation's passing have even lapsed and before their effects can even be understood.
If, after those years, education in United States does show some negative trends that owed to Bush's legislation, a Democrat may be an office and it will all be blamed on him or the previous Democrat. And a new Republican candidate might repeat Bush's policy all over again.
But worse, if Obama does pass a sweeping education legislation before his term is over, it will be before the ink on Bush's act is even dry. Teachers and educators working before NCLB would have had to adapt to new legislations back then, and before they know it, they'll have to scrap their old practices again.
But I found this in Michael Singh's piece at Washington Institute website:
"For many years, U.S. diplomats have sought to persuade President Mubarak that the surest way to leave a positive legacy and prevent Egypt from falling into the hands of extremists would be to nurture real political pluralism and allow a democratic transition of power. Clearly he was unconvinced."
Mubarak understands his country better than foreigners do. There is also perfectly valid reasoning in dismissing American reports that democracy in Egypt will not lead to the Muslim Brotherhood taking over. The Shi'ia control of Iraq after democracy is proof. Did you know that the protesters were shouting, "Tel Aviv waits with open arms, Mubarak!"? Egyptians are just waiting to shed Israeli, Coptic, and Ahmadi blood. Democracy will allow rule of law to be marginalised next to mass bloodthirst.
Nice analogy! I'm not sure whether there is enough history of democracy to bear you out, but I think it's *likely* that you're right. A flexible, adaptive government should be more robust in the long term. Autocracies are less adaptive because they are purposed to maintaining a particular social order.
ReplyDelete