Canada’s Debate

Before anyone takes my post as a criticism of non-western governance/politics, let me just clarify a few things. Blogging at 7:20 in the morning is still a new thing for me, so I may occasionally get sidetracked.

My primary goal was not to criticize the Pakistani (or other non-western) iteration of Democracy; rather it was to criticize the characterization of Musharaf’s crackdown as a “subversion of democracy.” Musharaf was a dictator, however “enlightened” his rule might have been. He came to power by military coup and he manipulated the existing political system through force and legal maneuvering in order to stay in power.

The fact that journalists throughout the world place the word democracy in any proximity to present-day Pakistan is alarming… so much so that I am only able to draw two conclusions: first, that our standards of democracy have slipped so low that any system where people cast votes qualifies; and second, that we take a provincial view of non-western systems and apply a different standard to them when considering politics… the same way we would call a 6-year old’s lemonade stand a “franchise.”

Neither thought is very comforting.

I suppose the gentlemanly thing to do then would be to justify these two hypothesis. Lets look at my first suggestion, that our standards of democracy have slipped.

I’ve written (and talked- for those of you who know me in a more tangible medium) about “low intensity democracy” numerous times over the last few years. I even mentioned it in my last post. Low-intensity democracy can be described in two terms: as a sort of hands-off development process, or post-liberalism colonization. Basically it describes a democratic system where the basics of a traditional democracy are set in place, but the foundations are almost like facades; political parties are tied to existing political and economic interests with little differentiation between candidates and leadership practices.

The thinking behind this (which has yet to be discredited, even though it has been challenged) is simply this: that political development is best achieved through economic and social development; a low intensity democracy creates a stable government which is open to economic freedom; and that freedom eventually into tangible social development. Obviously, this theory (and the practice thereof) leaves lots of room for criticism or outright cynicism. Either way, democracies in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe and South America can be readily described as low-intensity.

Unfortunately “low intensity” can increasingly describe governance here in more traditional bastions of “freedom,” “liberty,” and all those other sexy political ideas. As citizens we are increasingly dissillusioned with our leaders, parties, officials and fellow electors; and democracy seems to become more shallow with each passing election. Is it possible that this proliferation of “low intensity democracy” abroad- and our increasing awareness of it, when combined with our difficulties with democracy at home have undermined the very idea of Democracy? Are we at the point where “democracy” means a system where people vote; and none of the other fundamental qualities like freedom and transparency no longer matter?

Of course, there is always that second possibility, that we take a provincial view of democracy in non-western states.

Condescension and infantilization is hardly a new concept. As long as there has been “sophisticated” ideas there has been someone looking down their nose at the people who don’t share them. Call them “barbarians,” “provincials” or anything else and the thinking is the same: lesser ideas equals lesser (wo)men. One of the fundamental elements of “Western liberalism” (as well as many other social/political/religious modes) is the concept that these ideas are inherently superior to competing concepts.

As people steeped in this “western liberal” tradition- and make no mistake, almost all of us are- we are easily able to recognize non-western iterations of democracy. Sometimes this is done on a factual, rational basis… sometimes this is done on less reasoned grounds (”look at the funny name of that guy, how can he be a President!”) Is it perhaps possible that we consider Pakistani politics inferior, and as such assign little (or no) value to the term democracy in a Pakistani context?

To those who reject this theory outright, let me ask you this: If Rick Hillier (our top military commander for both my U.S. readers) jailed our Prime Minister, rewrote the Constitution, cracked down on political opposition and increased the presence of military and “security” forces throughout Canadian society, would he get a softball interview on The Daily Show? I don’t think so…