Democracy Isn't Easy

In an interview recently published in The New York Times, Carlos Fernando Chamorro, the liberal Nicaraguan journalist and editor of the Sandanista newspaper Barricada during the 1980's, stated that democracy was not the goal he and his fellow revolutionaries had hoped to achieve with the overthrow of dictator Antonio Samoza in 1979. They were simply seeking social reform. Nicaragua at the time had no experience of democracy and no institutions to support it. Democracy is still nascent here and struggling. Even the flagrant corruption and election rigging that they commonly see fails to incite outrage among Nicaraguans. After all, why would you expect better from politicians?

Contrary to the child-like belief of George W. Bush, the mere holding of an election does not a democracy make. The old Soviet Union held elections regularly, but could hardly have been called democratic. The great, unappreciated gift Americans received from England and which is the foundation of their republic is a tradition of democracy, responsible government, personal freedom and the rule of law that was centuries in the making. Only an Englishman could have written the Declaration of Independence. Unfortunately, Iraq and Afghanistan have no such legacy to build upon and it cannot be implanted by naïve foreigners. Likewise, the revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine in recent years may have brought more popular leaders into power, but they have not really changed the nature of government in those nations. Election to public office is still commonly looked upon as a license to steal rather than an opportunity to do public service. It will take generations of hard work to make these countries into functioning representative democracies, if it ever happens at all. The same is true over much of the world.

Hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid has been sent to the developing world over the past few decades since the end of colonialism. Along with sincere diplomatic efforts, innumerable international conferences and many well intended global projects, it has achieved just slightly more than nothing. Until the political systems of the poor countries change, all efforts to improve the circumstances of their peoples will be nothing more than spitting into the wind. The aid money might just as well be stacked in a great pile, doused with gasoline and set alight for all the real good it will achieve. Building genuine democracy is a hard, complex, costly and long-term endeavor, but it is the only true path to development.

Political development means that grass roots political parties have to be formed and leaders of integrity found. A free press needs to take seriously its responsibility to inform the public and question power. Independent and disinterested commissions must be formed to run elections and safeguard the results. When courts, legislators and civil servants feel the moral obligation, and moral authority, to protect the public interest against abuses of power, then democracy will have a chance to flourish.

Ultimately, progress will only be made through decades of persistent and often thankless work by a few activists that will most often yield frustratingly incremental gains. Political leaders can be expected to play an incidental role, at best. It will be the dedication of the small minority who devote their lives, and often risk their lives, to press for fundamental change that will decide the future of our world. The support and financial aid of the First World should be directed to these change agents if it is to have any genuine impact. The task is huge and the odds are stacked heavily against success but, in the end, it's still the best hope we have. As Margaret Mead said, “Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”