Max Boot on Democratisation

I generally agree with Max Boot, but a line in his column over the weekend struck me the wrong way. In an LA Times op-ed "A Democratic World Is No Neocon Folly" (reg req'd, or read it on the CFR page), Boot writes on the history of the Wilsonian idea of a U.S.-led mission to spread freedom across the globe. He notes that recently, the idea has been pushed aside as either a purportedly arrogant display of American desires for world hegemony, or as noble but impractical ideal that creates more insecurity than it prevents:

Because of the difficulties we are encountering in Iraq, the democratization imperative is under attack today from both left and right. From Pat Buchanan to Paul Krugman, the cry has gone up that the stress on exporting American ideals is a plot by nefarious "neoconservatives." Even John Kerry — the nominee of Wilson's own party — sounds disdainful of attempts to spread freedom to places like Cuba and Iran.

Maybe, the cynics suggest, some people (the Arabs, for instance) are simply unfit for self-rule. More sophisticated versions of this argument suggest focusing on economic development first, to be followed eventually by political liberalization. If impoverished nations rush to hold elections, realpolitikers fear, the result could be the rise of "illiberal democracies" or instability and civil war.

Now, I do not consider myself a "realpolitiker". Indeed, I consider myself a neoconservative (albeit of the Fukuyama rather than the Krauthammer variety, that is, of the kind that acknowledges the importance of multilateralism, rather than single-minded unilateralism).

However, I fear that I am one of the cynics that Boot is referring in that I am a proponent of the idea that democratic elections are the least important of objectives of the neocon agenda. The rise of illiberal democracies is indeed a concern. It is not that I desire that countries modernise economically before elections. As Boot mentions in his op-ed, democracy encourages economic growth, not the other way around.

No, what I value more than elections or economic modernisation is the political, social and cultural reform of the country. It is necessary to liberalise a country before democratising it. A nation that maintains illiberal notions, that does not embrace freedom of religion or of the press, that continues to suppress women and minorities, that imposes strict interpretations of religious laws, will not be improved by elections. If anything, it will provide a veneer of legitimacy to those beliefs.

Boot acknowledges the importance of liberal values -- but he does not seem to acknowledge that liberalisation can be a long and arduous process that may require decades of liberal imperialism by an external power or liberal authoritarianism by an internal administration. I hope it is simply a matter of definition -- that where Boot writes of the democratic imperative, he includes liberalisation first followed by democratic elections after an appropriate period of time. I take a perhaps more cynical view, that democracy does not also come hand in hand with political freedom and civil liberties. But I do agree with the "realpolitickers" that Boot disparages, if for a different reason. Rushing to elections can be dangerous, but not because those countries are too poor or not economically modern enough, but because they are not liberal enough.

On a related note, there is a thread at Kevin Drum's Political Animal blog about Max Boot. Kevin sparked some debate amongst his readers after calling Boot an "appealing neocon", in the context of a discussion of the line-up of the LA Times op-ed page.