With the recent signing of the Iraqi constitution, pundits and politicians of all shapes, sizes, and intelligences have joined the chorus crying for a “push toward democracy” to alleviate this troubled land of its political burdens and fulfill America’s promises.
Some charge the United States is hypocritical to support non-democratic states and simultaneously seek the dismantling of “rogue nations.”
This fallacious argument misses the point: the dilemma for international policy is not Islam versus Christianity, dictatorship versus democracy or East versus West.
The problem is simply stability versus chaos.
The western world perceives a threat to stability, or peace if you prefer, and seeks to correct this threat through international policy.
From the perch of a 21st century civilization smugly reviewing the supposed barbarism of our ancestors, I understand the ease in which Americans assume that democracy naturally bears the disclaimer “Nine out of ten Gods agree: perfect, will not self-destruct.”
Well it’s said that in the beginning was the Word, and I’m afraid that the Word doesn’t feature “democracy.”
While people seem to think that a “good government” and “democracy” are synonyms, the very origins of our remarkably stable nation speak against this historically dubious position.
In the “Federalist Papers,” political theorists James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay brilliantly laid out their case against purer democracy as embodied in the infamous Articles of Confederation.
The thinkers who wrote these documents formed the foundation for the ideas which led to the Constitution, a thoroughly un-democratic system of balance and diffusion of power. The problem with democracies, our founding fathers concluded, was that they are intrinsically unstable.
Freedom evolves from stability which grows over time through custom, law, and tradition.
Aristotle concurred, seeing in the destruction of Athenian power the tragic fall of a system just barely preferable to tyranny.
Let’s remember everyone’s favorite personification of evil, Adolph Hitler, wasn’t delivered by a long-established aristocracy.
He was voted into office by an enthusiastic majority of “the people.”
It’s enough to send me scrambling for the beer hall.
Recently this argument has been renewed by the re-election of President Vladimir Putin in Russia, which was aided by a state press favorable to the manipulative head of state and faced questionable legality in the election process.
Russia, the astute criticize, is not a transparent democracy.
What a revelation!
The ruble fails, mob murders are as commonplace as drunk driving in Louisiana and suicide rates top world stats.
And people are worried about Russia’s democratic values?
It’s no secret that the communists took Russia in a wrong direction. Unfortunately in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, conditions worsened.
Anarchy replaced the tenuous order that existed under the former government, and the standard of living plummeted while corruption thrived.
Putin has received much criticism for being a former member of the Soviet secret police, but a policeman is exactly what Russia needs.
The Russians need order and stability, and these don’t philosophize themselves into existence.
In short, the Russians need Vladimir Putin.
Russia has many hurdles to clear, and only a strong leader like Putin can form a substantive nation from the chaos left over by the Soviets, a chaos which opened a massive political vacuum.
Russia remains one of the most important economic players on the planet, and still possesses the potential to regain much of its former status.
It is in our and the world’s best interest to see that a 21st century Russia emerge as a viable and stable component to the global community.