March 2005
Is It a Revolution or What?
Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Georgia, Ukraine, and now some of the ’stans in Central Asia have experienced elections, demonstrations, and quavering or falling regimes. What is going on? Is it a revolution? If so, how has it happened? Should the United States try to lead or manage it? These and other questions were the subject of a March 30 AEI panel discussion.
Michael A. Ledeen
AEI
The 1980s were marked by democratic revolutions. Then there was a long pause, which led me to write Freedom Betrayed, in which I blamed the lack of democratic movement on two administrations that did not care about the cause of freedom.
Now the revolution has resumed. The latest nation to embrace democracy is Bhutan, an isolated agricultural nation between India and China. Yesterday, the king of Bhutan announced the end of absolute rule. No corner of the world is exempt from democratic revolution. The Chinese are right in their belief that one does not best understand a moment by studying the casual sequence of events leading up to the event. Rather, one must try to appreciate the unique characteristics of the moment. It is the moment that matters.
Laruent Murawiec
Hudson Institute
To the contrary of what Mr. Ledeen communicated, the causal sequence of events does matter. The end of dictatorships in the last thirty years--Spain, Greece, and Portugal in Europe; Korea and Taiwan in East Asia; and the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe--all had something in common. Beyond ideological similarities, the regimes believed that they owned their subjects. In order to own the people, each regime had to institute one form or another of autarky.
Autarky allows the ownership of the subjects to be exercised in the form of a police state. The police state enabled rulers to maintain their autarkical countries. David Pryce-Jones described this strategy as maintaining the “closed circle.” The “closed circle” is one from which the captive subjects could not emerge. This is the common thread that unites all the countries that liberated themselves from despotism. The closed circle can currently be seen throughout the Middle East. It is this common thread that matters in the present situation.
Michael Novak
AEI
The Founders of the United States believed the notion of a revolution to be like the turning of a wheel, a returning to one’s first principles. The Muslim populations have almost virtually and universally been living under tyranny. While many Muslim countries possess great oil wealth, their people, for the most part, do not benefit from this natural resource. To a great extent, the people either live in poverty or with a lack of opportunities to develop their talents and vocations.
When speaking of the current situation as it relates to democratic revolutions, one must be sensibly cautious. Democracy is not simply the ability to vote; democracy requires, as Tocqueville termed it, a “long education.” Democracy requires a change in political ideas, institutions, and a suitable economy. It requires a change of habit. Children must be brought up differently in order to be prepared for a life of initiative and responsibility, rather than obedience and fear. Democracy takes a long time.
One countervailing fact is that of the compressed learning cycle. The suffering certain peoples have endured has been so intense and brutal that they are determined to give democracy a try. A second reality, as it relates to the compressed learning cycle, is the visible example of other people living more prosperous lives. Through television, travel, and pilgrimage, people living under tyranny are able to observe the freedoms enjoyed by others.
To those that argue Islam is not hospitable to democracy, I set forth two counterarguments. Muslims have a long streak of practicality. They have often lived in considerable peace with their neighbors who profess another faith. The reason is that there is a thread of worldliness that runs through Muslim nations; it is wrong to assume that every person is devoted to and preoccupied with religion. Second, buried within Islam is a powerful theory of liberty. Any religion that has a theory or punishments and rewards for individual actions must also have a theory of liberty.
Richard Perle
AEI
Given the choice, no one would choose slavery. There is something inherent in mankind that desires freedom. We are seeing a revolution, and it is expressing itself in disparate parts of the world. There is something in the water and the air, and that it is the discovery of the possibility of freedom.
Believing that the world that you live in is the best one possible is a very powerful disincentive to participate in a revolution. It is no longer possible to conceal the freedoms enjoyed by others in the world. The tsunami of freedom originated in Afghanistan and Iraq. The powerful images have swept away the belief that freedom is simply not possible. These examples have caused Iranians and Lebanese to question why they do not enjoy freedom.
This comes at a moment when we have a revolutionary administration. The Reagan administration was also revolutionary in the sense that President Ronald Reagan rejected the notion that the Soviet Union was a permanent fixture of the modern world. President George W. Bush’s intellectual roots are much closer to that of the Reagan administration than to his father’s administration. He has been willing to embrace revolutionary ideas, the most important being the need to spread human freedom. It is resonating, not so much because of what President Bush has said, but because of the examples of Afghanistan and Iraq.
The United States needs to align itself with those who have realized that they no longer have to live under tyranny. We must align ourselves with them politically and morally, and we should not shy away from providing material support. There are freedom movements in every country of importance. If the president’s policy and belief is to be implemented, then we will start to see our government assist people who are fighting for freedom.
Michael Rubin
AEI
As we look at the current situation, it is necessary to resist the temptation to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We should not accept Potemkin democracy for real democracy for the sake of short-term expediency. The last few months have shown that Muslims and others living under autocracy deserve the same rights and freedoms that we as Americans possess.
When speaking of accepting a façade for genuine democracy, one can look at the Iranian example. In 1997, people trumpeted the triumph of reformists in Iran, as Mohammad Khatami was elected over the favored candidate. What the media failed to report was that articles 91 and 100 of the Iranian constitution give the Council of Guardians the right to vet out candidates. The Council of Guardians eliminated 234 out or 238 presidential candidates. What we saw was the desire for change celebrated, rather than change itself. A turning point came in 1999, during the student uprisings, when vigilante gangs and other law enforcement officials attacked a student dormitory. Members of the student movement believed that Khatami would support them and stand up for them. Khatami did not speak out on their behalf and consequently created great disappointment. Sometimes the United States lags behind the debate. We are willing to assign the label “democrat” or “reformer” after the citizens of a country have long given up.
Why is the revolution taking place now? It would be foolish not to credit the current administration’s policy for standing up verbally, rhetorically, and in substance for the idea of freedom and democracy. We cannot celebrate prematurely, however, as everyone on the panel has expressed that democracy takes time. There is a revolution underway, and what we need to recognize is that everyone is deserving of liberty.
AEI staff assistant Kara Nichols Barrett prepared this summary.
