A comment on democracy - free to elect freely?
For the past years, my mind has been occupied with thoughts around democracy. While I did not use to give the practice or fundamental concept of it much thought, conversations with people particularly in Oman, where I spent some time, made me reconsider many beliefs I had taken for granted.
In this piece, I want to explore the international sphere of democracy. Democracy in many western nations (a lose term I will have to delve into in another article) has been normalized, and while the forms of it are in fact very different from one another (consider for example the two party system of the US, the direct democracy of Switzerland or parliamentary democracy of the UK) in times when non-western nations explore the kind of democracy they want to establish, suddenly it seems as if these differences are no longer present. In a manner that one can mildly describe as intrusive and in a firm way as outright violent(word) these nations appear to ban together and pick and choose the international forms of governments and democracies that will benefit their own interests. Those who stray too far from western ideals know to be weary of the economic or military action that is certain to follow.
But let's begin with the basics: A democratic government stands for the belief in freedom and equality between people or is defined by a system of government based on this belief. Power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves. (Cambridge dictionary)
But is that truly what democracy is? If democracy is as loosely defined as that, why do many countries oppose certain democracies, even if they are freely and fairly elected?
When most people speak of democracy they imagine western democracies. They continue to be regarded as the epicenter of freedom and the greatest advocators for self-determination, yet I would argue that this is nothing more than the last remains of a façade also known as western superiority. Claiming the position of judges of what constitutes an acceptable form of government, western nations have and continue to pick and choose international forms of government acceptable for themselves. Often their opposition is disguised as wanting to protect the integrity of democracy, I find that it is usually only a racist excuse to further a countries own agenda. In this article I am specifically looking at the treatment of democracies in the “Middle East” (a term I do not like as one has to wonder – the middle east from where?) and North Africa.
When states advocate for their form of government and try to force it onto other nations, they completely ignored the fact that firstly, it is not their place, and secondly, that other nations already have governments set up and cultures that precede the type of government best suited for them.
Through globalization and increased “advocacy” for democracy, many once undemocratic countries began holding their own elections or setting up new forms of government. This is where my question of the foundation of democracy comes in - What if a country holds its own elections for a democratic government, yet the democratic west objects to the elected party?
(Unprofessional side remark: Once again, one might wonder: why is it the wests place to interfere? Truthfully, I have no clue and it makes very little sense to me, yet here we are.)
Let’s firstly look the example of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 2012. With 51% of the votes, Mohamed Morsi officially won the presidential election. When the government was overthrown in a military coup in 2013 a new president, el-Sisi, was elected with over 90% of the votes in an election that was widely condemned for its lack of transparency and fairness. This new government, even though it did not represent the democracy western nations had gone to war for in many instances, received over $3.2 billion in arm sales from the Obama administration. The military coup transitioned into a military rule.
The Muslim Brotherhood stands for a strong Muslim identity and was described as a “Global Threat” by the U.S Congress’s Subcommittee in 2018 where a number of hearings were dedicated to the purpose of identifying what dangers the Muslim Brotherhood poses to American interests around the world.
While I firmly disagree with the Muslim Brotherhood’s views on women and the role of women, I ask myself if it does not go against the very idea of “the rule of the people” if outside influences interfere with electoral outcomes. Naturally, we ought to defend human rights and the rights of the individual, but should this advocacy not be led by people from within rather than by outside forces?
The self-determination democracy enables for the individual ought to count for the nation as well. Western nations acting as if they knew what was best for other nations only enforces harmful (and false) ideas of western superiority and makes it seem as if nations governed by other ethnicities or religions need the west’s help which they most certainly do not. In fact, I believe that we would all benefit from European and North American nations taking a step back from meddling in another nation’s business for their own benefit.
But I am digressing. Nations cannot claim that they support democracy and then support military actions against democratically elected governments.
The second example I would like to consider for this purpose is the first free election of the Palestinian people in 2006. Under the watchful eyes of the international community Hamas was elected.
I am quoting from Naom Chomsky’s and Ilan Pappé’s 2015 book “On Palestine” here: “In January 2006, Palestinians committed a major crime: they voted the wrong way in a carefully monitored free election. The media constantly intone that Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. In reality, Hamas leaders have repeatedly made it clear that Hamas would accept a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus that had been blocked by the United States and Israel for forty years. (…) The crime of the Palestinians in January 2006 was punished at once. The United States and Israel, with Europe shamefully trailing behind, imposed harsh sanctions on the errant population and Israel stepped up its violence. The United States and Israel quickly initiated plans for a military coup to overthrow the elected government. When Hamas had the effrontery to foil the plans, the Israeli assaults and the siege became far more severe. (…) By July 31, around 1,400 Palestinians had been killed, mostly civilians.”
Governing bodies continue to give me the impression that states who do not have democracies or governments set up to benefit the west or which represent their culture or religion have “wrong” democracies or governments. But that is a mistaken belief that has already cost us much peace and many lives.
We cannot pick and choose democracies according to western will. It defeats the very purpose of freely elected democracies to approve of some and attempt to or successfully remove others.
If we believe in democracy, I will argue that we believe in the will of the majority, whatever this might be. At the end of the day, what we hope to receive from democracy is to have a government that represents our interests, the interests of the people in that country. And this belief cannot be confined by western ideals of what kind of democratically elected government is acceptable.
Sources:
https://www.cato.org/commentary/ten-years-after-coup-us-still-supports-tyranny-egypt