No Short Cuts to Democracy

A lot has been made of President George Bush’s new plan to spread democracy across the globe. This push started as a re-casting of the war in Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was taken down and it was revealed he was not as large a threat to our national security as had once been promised. So, in a very smooth PR transition, we were no longer hunting for WMDs, but were promoting democracy to this oppressed nation. All in all, a very noble objective for Americans to undertake, especially as it has come, and is still coming, at such a high cost to our own country both in terms of raw dollars as well as human costs.

However, in a larger sense, it has brought me back to considering the basics of democracy itself. This post is not about our President per se, nor about the war in Iraq. It is about democracy, that part of our country that some have called “our noblest export.” And it is truly a good thing. But, what are the conditions for democracy? What does it take for a country to move towards a democratic future?

Whenever I think of the onset of democracy in a country or region of the world, I often think back to Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series. In it, there was a series of socio-economic mathematics developed that could predict, with varying degrees of accuracy, the course of a civilization. A most ingenious and interesting idea, that statistical analyses can work together to provide a model for future empires, rebellions, market changes, etc.. Fun in the science fiction arena, unfortunately it does not exist in the real world.

There comes a time in the history of any civilization that the people desire to make more of themselves. They desire to become citizens rather than subjects, rulers as opposed to the oppressed. Whether this democracy they form is the final form of government or not is irrelevant (it is often not; even our own country has undergone numerous changes to its democratic foundations – we continue to augment it still). The underlying principle that becomes evident is that democracy is an evolutionary process. As such, it takes both a significant pressure to force change as well as an environment conducive to respond to that pressure and begin the necessary change. This environment is a social and mental state of the people, rather than any physical attribute they (or their enemies) may possess (or lack).

But, as an evolutionary process, democracy is not going to be easy. It will put up a fight, especially as there is usually a considerable amount of forces arrayed against its maturity. There are times it will fail, and then must be resurrected in the future when the environment is more receptive. Or it may gain headway, then be pushed aside by despotism or foreign invasion, which are always a threat. Again, it is not destroyed altogether, merely delayed. But in virtually no case is achieving democracy easy.

America’s example is very illustrative. A colony of the mighty British Empire, Americans felt consistently marginalized and subjugated by the imperial power. Finally the dam broke, and the loosely-enjoined colonies rose up against that empire. Through sheer willpower and drive to be free, we defeated the British and took control of our own destiny. But to get through to that point, we endured a lot – militarization, taxes, tariffs, poor representation and reception from the main government – many of which we attempted to solve with the Articles of Confederation, then the Constitution. It is not perfect, but it is functional.

The point of our own sojourn to democracy is that we, the people, wanted it and made it happen. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” In that one statement, Dr. King accurately encapsulates all that is wrong with the American agenda. I would take King’s statement even further, adding that freedom cannot be given by anyone, oppressor or liberator. Democracy, and the freedoms that lie within its protective borders, is one of the greatest boons to society imaginable. But these boons, like any reward, must be earned by the people. It takes a will to change, a resolve to see it through, and the vision to plan out a new democratic future. The will arises from the evils of unfair government, tyrannical leadership, economic hardships, or other socio-economic factors that pressure the people until they are unwilling to be subject to that treatment anymore. The resolve is needed to follow through, as usually the oppressor is better equipped to put down movements that attempt democracy and has a desire not to lose its own “vaulted” status in the country and on the world stage. Most important is the vision, a symbiosis of various disciplines that are needed to create the new government out of the old, sometimes starting from scratch. This vision must also balance (in this modern day) global influences, cultural differences, historical pressures, and future directions. Not an easy task. Putting these three together and you have the beginnings for what might be a successful revolution.

However, these qualities must be an organic part of the populace; they cannot be supplied from outside. For a country to approach democracy, it takes years, sometimes decades or even centuries, to cultivate these organic attitudes and mentalities and to forge them into a cohesive revolution. For another country to supply these elements from the outside, or to prematurely “liberate” the country before these facets are in place, leads to a country which requires intensive support, as we are finding out in Iraq. In that, it is not unlike a premature baby. The liberator then becomes the life support, trying through artificial means to keep the country alive until its democratic organs develop from within. And yet there is no guarantee that the IVs put in place will carry out their intended function. Whereas a “natural” democracy has a good chance of achieving stability, one that is sown by another has a high chance of debilitating problems, including civil war, anarchy, fractionation, feudalism, or totalitarianism. And those could set back the onset of democracy even further than if no intervention had been attempted in the first place.

Giving a people democracy prematurely, while a good idea in theory, fails to take into account the necessity for a country to earn its freedoms. It if is merely handed to them, they will not possess an appreciation for what it means, having not had to endure the trials and tribulations associated with gaining democracy. This lack of appreciation can lead to numerous other futures other than a democracy; some of the more unpleasant ones are listed above. The truth is, it takes a long time of introspective growth to reach democracy. There are no shortcuts. It is an unfortunate truth, especially seeing some of these arduous steps (including a civil war) that we had to wade through repeated elsewhere. It is tough to stand by and watch the process in action, as it can be a slow process. Some of the countries in Africa are finding this out the hard way, complicated by years of civil wards, despots, genocides, and other horrible pressures put upon the people. You want to jump in and help, being one of the strongest nations in the world. But do not forget that in the midst of our own civil war, France was poised to step in and aid the Confederacy, but refrained. Had they butted into our affairs, being a powerful empire with large resources, imagine what this country would look like today. Thus, perhaps we should assist in ideas, financial assistance where needed, but allow them to move forward through the flames of their own democratic processes. It may seem inhumane, or unfair, but it is in this fire that strong democracies are forged. Anything less is too brittle to withstand the forces of time.

Update to "Brain Drain..."

What I pointed out months ago, and what others have been saying for years, has now hit the mainstream media. With the new edition of Time magazine, following closely on the heels of the 2006 State of the Union address, the topic of science education, funding, and development in this country and its future is now in main political sights. Where will this take us? Let a real battle for the future of our country begin.

Destructive Protectivism

The United States seems to be heading in a rather worrisome direction in terms of how the government handles competition from abroad. This is not about outsourcing, but it is about free-marked capitalism, a tenet of our economic society that our current President fiercely endorses (his notable refusal to bail out the auto industry is one such indication). With this passionate stance, it is hard to imagine that this same administration, indeed the entire US government, has been slowly trying to interfere with the markets, especially when it concerns products from other countries Too often, the knee-jerk reaction in the government at all levels has been to block moves, to impose tariffs, to ban products when it is contrary to what a large American corporation/industry desires The examples go on and on.

2002:The Bush administration places a tariff on the majority of steel imports from Europe, Asia, and South America that lasts for 20 months The range of the tariffs ran between 8 and 30 percent. These were imposed for two reasons, it seems. One was to protect the last remaining steel facilities in the Eastern United States from cheaper, better products from overseas. It was also done to gain political capital in the Rust Belt, which is a crucial battlefield in recent Presidential elections. The move was ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization, but that did nothing to stop the administration. It was only after the European Union and Japan announced they would impose sanctions on billions of dollars of US exports that the administration backed down from its claims.

2004:California begins the process to be the first state in the nation to allow hybrid vehicles to utilize the carpool lane with only a driver. This was to encourage people to buy and use hybrids, which dramatically reduce the amount of exhaust as well as gasoline consumption. At the time, the vast majority of the hybrid vehicles were supplied by Japanese companies, notably Toyota and Honda. The American auto industry responded with an intended lawsuit, claiming that this gave Toyota and Honda, who spent years developing this beneficial technology, an unfair advantage in the marketplace. Luckily, the suit never got far, and the hybrid exemption for the carpool lanes is now in effect.

1990s-2005:In one of the most egregious cases of tariffs, the catfish industry took a scathing response to the rise in quality and demand for Vietnamese catfish. The catfish industry in Vietnam had been growing slowly but surely since the Vietnam War, and by the 1990s they had begun to export their catfish across the world, including the United States. They had soon dominated over a fifth of the market in frozen catfish. The US catfish industry wouldn’t stand for that, so they went to their government for protectionist legislation. Boy did they get it. First, Sen. Trent Lott, R-MS, adds an amendment to an unrelated appropriations bill saying that only American catfish can be termed, “catfish”. The Vietnamese fish have to be called, “basra>” or “tra” despite the fact that they’re nearly identical fish. Rep. Marion Berry, D-AR went even further, insinuating that Vietnamese catfish are contaminated with Agent Orange. Haha. Then, the industry filed an anti-dumping suit against the Vietnamese catfisheries. This law usually works for industries that demonstrate an unfair competitive advantage, usually by subsidies. However, the US Commerce Department couldn’t find evidence that there was any heavily subsidizing of the catfish industry in Vietnam. Nevertheless, they bowed to pressure and declared that all Vietnamese industries – all of them – were by nature anti-competitive.

However, the Vietnamese catfish must have been that good, as a 2005 poll in Mississippi concluded that American consumers preferred the Vietnamese “basra” by a margin of 3 to 1. Similar, though slimmer, margins were found by a survey in Louisiana. This wouldn’t stand, so in August of 2005, largely under the radar of media attention, Alabama and Louisiana declared an out-right ban against catfish from Vietnam. Their reasoning rested on the case of the catfish possessing a “bioterrorist” threat to United States consumers. Wow.

These are but a few examples of the types of tariffs that the government has been trying to implement, or that industry has been pressuring them to advance. It is a natural feeling to want to protect our own industries, but these measures take nativist thinking to a new, and dangerous, level. Such extended forms of economic isolationism and protectivism have never really worked. Europe in the few decades preceding the 1990s relied on such an approach in their auto industry, when faced with competition from leaner, cheaper Japanese models. The US stood against them and forced themselves to adapt and change. The resultEurope’s market share fell dramatically, while the US survived and began a new era of car manufacturing that could rival Japan’s. And, in the new era of globalization, such measures are not likely to be tolerated by other areas of the world. As exemplified by the response to steel tariffs by both the EU and Japan, protectivism will only lead to further economic rivalries, tariffs, embargoes, and complications. It is counter-intuitive to the notion of a free market to combat improvements in an industry with such backwards thinking. It reflects poorly on our own industries, as well as a combative attitude of our government. That is not conducive to this new world of global trade. I hope we can rise above this current trend to show the world we are still the masters of innovation, and of the free market economy.

A Call to Action?

From President George W. Bush’s 2006 State of the Union Address: “And to keep America competitive, one commitment is necessary above all: We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity. Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hardworking, ambitious people -- and we're going to keep that edge. Tonight I announce an American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage innovation throughout our economy, and to give our nation's children a firm grounding in math and science.

First, I propose to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years. This funding will support the work of America's most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources.

Second, I propose to make permanent the research and development tax credit to encourage bolder private-sector initiatives in technology. With more research in both the public and private sectors, we will improve our quality of life -- and ensure that America will lead the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come.

Third, we need to encourage children to take more math and science, and to make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations. We've made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country. Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms, and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs. If we ensure that America's children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world

This is certainly a commendable approach, one that is long overdue. As noted here in previous posts, there have been quite a few indicators that the scientific dominance that the has enjoyed over the last 50-80 years is quickly coming to a close, with disastrous consequences . Not only does it indicate damage to our reputation as a global power, our continued domination in economics, technology, science, engineering, and more . Indeed, maintaining a consistent, high-level of education for the next generation (and ensuring that they are able to provide the same for generations to come) is crucial to our survival into the future . You can read the report of this crisis from the at National Academy of Science

It is a good first step, but one is certainly left wondering: will it be done? Can it be done by this administration, by the current climate in our political offices, by the attitude of the citizenry? The changes that need to be made exist not only on a governmental level, but on a personal level . We need to cherish the things that teachers give to society; they need to be recognized as being important members of our society . I feel that only with this attitude change will we start to be able to implement policies that make sense, that we’re putting money in directions that will actually benefit ourselves and our children . It is time to wake up and see where we’re headed, and to move on what we want to become.