CONS FOR U.S. INTERESTS
Promoting democracy does have its consequences as any realist will be sure to point out. The most vivid example of this is what happed recently in the Palestinian election. The militant extremist group Hamas was voted into power. This group has a history of being militant extremists and routinely calling for the destruction of the state of Israel. Despite this, the Palestinian people viewed the group as more beneficial to them than any other political group. A similar group, the Muslim Brotherhood, would also likely get the nod in a free and fair election in Egypt. Even though President Hosni Mubarak has banned the group and wants to see is son come to power, the Muslim Brotherhood was surprisingly successful in last year’s elections. Rather than supporting this democratic result, the United States allowed Mubarak to crack down on political disagreement. This possibility of extremist parties gaining power is likely in other places as well. This is far from the outcome that the United States hopes for, but this is a possible result of giving people the power to choose their elected officials. It will be interesting to see how Hamas handles the test of its newfound political authority. Hopefully, realism will take over and they will become more moderate in their views and activities. If not, they are likely to fail.
Another drawback from the rapid spread of democracy is that democracies tend to be unstable in the short term period after they are established. The vacuum left by a defeated dictator leaves the way open for anyone and everyone to vie for power, through violence if necessary, with little fear of reprisal. Some of these clashes result in a large number of civilian deaths, an unanticipated and unwelcome side effect of democracy. As in the case of Iraq, democratization brings out long buried ethnic strife. As long as the power was in the hands of one person, the dissidents had to abide or face the dire consequences.
As a country moves away from authoritarian rule, the path is set for criminal, terrorist, and weapons proliferation activities. Under strict tyranny, those engaged in this line of work would likely be killed, but under a democracy, they have more freedom to operate without that fear being much of a factor.
As the lone superpower, the United States runs the risk of providing reasons for an anti-American coalition to form. As history shows, once a dominate world power is formed, countries tend to line up together against it to knock that superpower off of the top of the hill. If the United States is continually seen as imposing its will on other states, this adds fuel to the fire. The United States cannot claim to know what is best for every country and then set out to implement that policy. This creates resentment and the states that America intends to help will become counterproductive. Also, as the largest economy, other states look to America for funding of this spread of democracy. This quickly adds up to cost the American people tax dollars and more importantly, lives.
CONCLUSION
Although the democratic train appears to be slowing down, it is still the right approach to take. The United States can not sit back and idly appease tyranny and repressive governments. However, democracy in these regions must come at a slow pace over time rather than forceful, overnight operations. These instant types have not been successful as evidenced by the recent programs in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although they are more democratic and making great strides each day, they are far from ideal and have a long way to go before a real, peaceful democracy is realized. Whoever advised the president that democracy would be openly welcomed, needs to be sacked. Just five minutes of thought would lead one to the conclusion that the spread of democracy in the Middle East will be neither easy nor cheap. They have no experience with this type of government. To bring about democracy in the right way, one must consider what the critical interests of the people who live in the region are. That said, security is all important to the people living in the Middle East, and democracy erodes some of that security in the interest of gaining freedom. Ensuring stability and security should be the first step in building a democracy there.
In allowing the people to make their own decisions, the United States must also learn to take the good with the bad. Not all elections will end up with a peace-loving, benevolent leadership. Given the opportunity for freedom of speech and freedom of region, not all states will be amenable to the global authority of the United States. Overall, the spread of democracy is good for the world. In the long run, it gives people the power to choose their own leaders, promotes protection of the environment, promotes the value of human rights, lessens the need for the United States to come to their aid, and decreases the possibility of global conflict and WMD proliferation. However, people must have realistic expectations. Democracy must take place one step at a time.
