Sharansky: Substance not form
From the LA Times, a think piece by Natan Sharansky (a survivor of the Soviets’ gulag).
Key graf (which comes near the end of the essay):
The recent election of Hamas is the fruit of a policy that focused on the form of democracy (elections) rather than its substance (building and protecting a free society). Rather than push for quick elections, the democratic world must use its considerable moral, political and economic leverage to help build free societies in the Middle East. We should tie trade privileges to economic freedoms, encourage foreign diplomats to meet openly with dissidents and link aid to the protection of dissents (as Bush did when he helped force the release of Egyptian democracy advocate Saad Eddin Ibrahim.)
His conclusion:
Any regime, elected or not, that works to build a free society should be seen as a partner, if not a friend. Likewise, any regime, elected or not, that chokes freedom should be seen as an adversary, if not an enemy. Obviously, any regime that supports terrorism is hostile to the most fundamental principles of a free society and should therefore be treated as an enemy.
Helping democracy take root in the Arab world will take time and persistence. Most Arab governments will try to stamp out any spark of liberty. But the democrats within these societies are our partners. We can help them by refusing to support those who repress them, and by making clear through both our statements and our policies that the efforts to expand freedom within their societies will benefit their countries as much as ours. The alternative is to return to the pre-9/11 delusion that a tyrant’s repression of his own subjects has no consequences for us.
In 1981 an Arab friend of mine said something very similar to Sharansky’s last paragraph. He lived under a repressive regime, but had been allowed to travel to Europe to take a technical training class. He wasn’t a particularly “political” man. Read Sharansky’s entire essay. He thinks the Bush Administration has pushed “democratic form” over substance, though he says the Bush Administration has brought moral clarity to US foreign policy and Bush’s own commitment to democracy is genuine. I think” substance” has been encouraged, but Sharansky’s point is well taken. Form and substance do link, but the opportunity to experiment with democracy is also “substantial” or “substantiating.” “Pulling the gun away from the heads of moderates” is a substantial benefit, and that in part is what The War on Terror is about.
Elections in Iraq and Afghanistan were as much for the benefit of Americans at home as for the countries that voted. Elections are visible symbols of democratic change but there is also substance - e.g., the schools, hospitals, and electricity grid we’re helping build and the economic, educational, and professional opportunities and improvements that now exist. These are the building blocks of democracy. There is no magic formula for transplanting democracy and even America has limitations on what it can accomplish. We’re doing a lot and our best; I’m sure we will do more and better. It’s time for the Iraqi and Afghan peoples to embrace this opportunity, and I believe that they are.
Comment by DRJ — 3/5/2006 @ 10:42 am
If democracy is a form, understanding why gives substance. Measured steps toward civilization helps explain that members of any culture can deduce humility and reciprocity as substance any successful society requires.
Comment by sbw — 3/5/2006 @ 2:57 pm
Real progress requires substance Austin Bay Blog refers to a a think piece by Natan Sharansky in the LA Times advising that substance is more important than form.
Trackback by sbw — 3/5/2006 @ 3:02 pm
I wish we were following Sharansky’s recommendations with our key allies, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan…
Comment by Filou — 3/5/2006 @ 9:54 pm
Democracy is the form. Liberty is the substance.
Comment by Ray — 3/5/2006 @ 10:27 pm
Obviously right on. We need to establish “Democratization Training Programs” in third world countries that are on America’s handout list. Dry BonesIsrael’s Political Comic Strip Since 1973
Comment by Yaakov Kirschen — 3/6/2006 @ 4:54 am
In it’s most basic, democracy is evolutionary not revolutionary. Our support of the right behaviors must continue unabated. Conversely, our challenge to regimes which are clearly unfriendly to their populace (North Korea, Zimbabwe, China, Venezuela, Iran, et. al.) must be confronted openly. We must state on which areas we disagree and be prepared for a lively discussion. There is, in my opinion, a moral high ground. Although I would not place America on it, we are a heck of a lot closer than most nations (if not all).
Comment by Citizen Deux — 3/6/2006 @ 10:33 am
[…] (normblog) IRAN THREATENS new ‘killing fields’ in nuclear row …. (israpundit) SHARANSKY: “The recent election of Hamas is the fruit of a policy that focused on the form of democracy (e […]
Pingback by CaNN :: We started it. — 3/7/2006 @ 1:13 pm