Mediaboss Marketing

John Adams, the second American president, famouslywarned that without constitutional constraints on the power of popularly elected governments, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

That these words of wisdom, which for so long remained dormant counsel in history books, now spring to relevance marks the crisis of modern democracy today. Drawing on his reading of the failures of Greek democracy and the Roman Republic in antiquity, Adamsunderstood that predatory appetites are whetted when too much power is concentrated in any one place.To that end, along with the other Founding Fathers, he designed a Constitution with circuit breakers an independent judiciary and a deliberative upper house selected to check the popularly elected lower house that would cut off power when too much of it flows to one set of interests, including, and especially, the electoral majority.As John C. Calhoun would later put it, a positive majority makes a government; anegative, or check on that power, makes constitutional rule.

Barely a day goes by in the United States when President Donald Trump doesnt assault one or another of the institutional constraints on his power, above all an independent judiciary and the free media, not to mention the special prosecutor appointed by the Justice Department to look into whether the Trump team colluded with Russia during the campaign. Fortunately, the weakness and incompetence of inexperienced leadership combined with factional polarization within the ruling Republican majority has only yielded paralysis. Democracy in the U.S.today may be wasting and exhausting itself, but so far it has not succeeded in taking its own life.

That is not the case elsewhere. As Nilfer Glewrote recently in The WorldPost, a pluralist Turkey that once aspired to join Europe has now given way to an authoritarian, Islamic populist regime ratified by a majority through the ballot box.

In Venezuela, the ruling regime has used the populist canard of a popular referendum to elect a stacked list for a constituent assembly to write new rules that nullify the power of the opposition-dominated National Assembly. The 545 largely pro-regime constituents elected over the weekend are now directed by Venezuelan President Nicols Maduros government not merely to rewrite the constitution, writesMoises Rendon, but also to establish a new communal political system with absolute power, not unlike those in Cuba or North Korea. The prospect of such a systemrisks total economic collapse, a worsened humanitarian crisis and permanent civil conflict in Venezuela.Since last weekends vote, Maduros government has moved speedily to arrest opposition leaders. With domestic avenues of resistance now blocked, hope turns to international pressure. The world needs to move now before the situation spirals into a failed state, says Rendon.

Ueslei Marcelino / Reuters

Poland, once the poster child of post-Cold War democratization, is sliding back to authoritarian rule. Taking heart from the solidarity with its illiberal sentiments expressed by Trump during hisrecent visit to Warsaw, the parliamentary majority of the ruling Law and Justice party and its allies passed legislation in July that would politicize the rule of law and end the independence of the judiciary. The aim, as Jacek Kucharczykwrites from Warsaw, is to completely overhaul the judiciary system, including the forced retirement of Supreme Court justices, [as] an essential part of the ruling partys long-term strategy of dismantling democratic checks and balances and introducing de facto one-party rule.

To everyones surprise, Polish President Andrzej Duda vetoed the law that would have ousted the Supreme Court justices after massive demonstrations against it across all of Polands major cities. These young people sent a strong signal to Duda, who largely owes his unexpected victory in 2015 to anti-establishment young voters, Kucharczyk reports. The ruling party has nonetheless pledged to press on with its proposed reforms. Stay tuned as uncertainty and turmoil grips yet another nation.

In Italy, representative democracy is being challenged from another angle by the populist Five Star Movement, which polls show is a leading contenderfor power in upcoming elections in 2018.The Eurosceptic movement believes that delegation of power to a corrupt political class ought to be replaced in the internet age by direct citizen participation in governance. In a video, a Five Star leader, Davide Casaleggio, explains a set of innovative online tools the movement has created not only to raise funds and recruit candidates for office from outside the mainstream parties, but to engage citizens directly in the proposition and drafting of legislation as well.

Writing in The WorldPost last year about Brazils own democratic meltdown,one of the countrys former presidents, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, identified the core of the crisis of representative democracy as the widening gap between peoples aspirations and the capacity of political institutions to respond to the demands of society. He continued: It is one of the ironies of our age that this deficit of trust in political institutions coexists with the rise of citizens capable of making the choices that shape their lives and influence the future of their societies.

Despite what one thinks of the Five Star Movements simplistic populism, the tools it is inventing are a significant remedy to closing the trust gap Cardoso identifies. If citizen empowerment can be combined with the ballast of deliberative bodies that check popular passions and formulate responsible policies, as John Adams and the other American Founding Fathers rightly thought so necessary, the renovation of democracy instead of its suicide may well be possible.

OHSU/OHSY

This week, scientists reported that, for the first time, they succeeded in editing the genes of a human embryo to eliminate a genetic mutation. Responding to the breakthrough, Craig Calhoun, the president of the Berggruen Institute, argues in a short essay that science and technological capacity are racing ahead of ethics, safety regulations and our understanding of risks and societal implications. Some, he writes, even worry that such gene editing practices are a backdoor to eugenics that will reinforce racial divisions. At a fundamental level, Calhoun posits, Genetic modification challenges our very idea of human nature. It suggests that we can make human beings into what we want them to be. Though conceding that gene editing is one of the most promising medical technologies in years, Calhoun concludes that unless there is much more attention to the ethical and social choices before us, we risk seeing that promise mired in controversy or turned into a disaster.

Though Mexico entered the democratic pantheon in 2000 when elections ended more than 70 years of one-party rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party, it has not yet been able to establish an effective rule of law. In an article and video that profile personal cases, Amnesty Internationals Josefina Salomn reports on what appears to be widespread arbitrary detentions by corrupt police chalking it all up to the war on drugs. View the WorldPost video based on Amnestys reporting below:

EDITORS:Nathan Gardels, Co-Founder and Executive Advisor to the Berggruen Institute, is the Editor-in-Chief of The WorldPost.Kathleen Milesis the Executive Editor of The WorldPost.Farah Mohamedis the Managing Editor of The WorldPost.Peter Mellgardis the Features Editor of The WorldPost.Alex Gardelsis the Video Editor of The WorldPost.Suzanne Gaberis the Editorial Assistant of The WorldPost.Rosa OHarais the Social Editor of The WorldPost.Katie Nelsonis News Director at HuffPost, overseeing The WorldPost and HuffPosts news coverage.Nick Robins-EarlyandJesselyn Cookare World Reporters.

EDITORIAL BOARD:Nicolas Berggruen,Nathan Gardels,Arianna Huffington,Eric Schmidt(Google Inc.),Pierre Omidyar(First Look Media),Juan Luis Cebrian(El Pais/PRISA),Walter Isaacson(Aspen Institute/TIME-CNN),John Elkann(Corriere della Sera, La Stampa),Wadah Khanfar(Al Jazeera)andYoichi Funabashi(Asahi Shimbun).

VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS:Dawn Nakagawa.

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS:Moises Naim(former editor ofForeign Policy),Nayan Chanda(Yale/Global; Far Eastern Economic Review) andKatherine Keating(One-On-One).Sergio Munoz BataandParag Khannaare Contributing Editors-At-Large.

The Asia Societyand itsChinaFile, edited byOrville Schell, is our primary partner on Asia coverage.Eric X. Liand the Chunqiu Institute/Fudan University in Shanghai andGuancha.cnalso provide first person voices from China. We also draw on the content ofChina Digital Times.Seung-yoon Leeis The WorldPost link in South Korea.

Jared Cohenof Google Ideas provides regular commentary from young thinkers, leaders and activists around the globe.Bruce Mauprovides regular columns fromMassiveChangeNetwork.comon the whole mind way of thinking.Patrick Soon-Shiongis Contributing Editor for Health and Medicine.

ADVISORY COUNCIL: Members of the Berggruen Institutes 21st Century Council and Council for the Future of Europe serve as theAdvisory Council as well as regular contributors to the site. These include,Jacques Attali, Shaukat Aziz,Gordon Brown,Fernando Henrique Cardoso,Juan Luis Cebrian,Jack Dorsey,Mohamed El-Erian,Francis Fukuyama,Felipe Gonzalez,John Gray,Reid Hoffman,Fred Hu,Mo Ibrahim,Alexei Kudrin,Pascal Lamy,Kishore Mahbubani,Alain Minc,Dambisa Moyo,Laura Tyson,Elon Musk,Pierre Omidyar,Raghuram Rajan,Nouriel Roubini,Nicolas Sarkozy,Eric Schmidt,Gerhard Schroeder,Peter Schwartz,Amartya Sen,Jeff Skoll,Michael Spence,Joe Stiglitz,Larry Summers,Wu Jianmin,GeorgeYeo,Fareed Zakaria,Ernesto Zedillo,Ahmed ZewailandZheng Bijian.

From the Europe group, these include:Marek Belka,Tony Blair,Jacques Delors,Niall Ferguson,Anthony Giddens,Otmar Issing,Mario Monti,Robert Mundell,Peter SutherlandandGuy Verhofstadt.

The WorldPost is a global media bridge that seeks to connect the world and connect the dots. Gathering together top editors and first person contributors from all corners of the planet, we aspire to be the one publication where the whole world meets.

We not only deliver breaking news from the best sources with original reportage on the ground and user-generated content; we bring the best minds and most authoritative as well as fresh and new voices together to make sense of events from a global perspective looking around, not a national perspective looking out.

Visit link:
Weekend Roundup: Modern Democracy At The Crossroads - HuffPost

Venezuela has installed an all-powerful constituent assembly with the authority to rewrite the constitution, remove public officials and trump all branches of government, raising concerns about the health of democracy in the country.

Opponents of President Nicolas Maduro fear it will solidly entrench his socialist administration and create a one-party state, while supporters say it offers a the best chance for peace after months of deadly unrest.

Some analysts evaluate the state of democracy in Venezuela:

MICHAEL SHIFTER, president of the Washington-based Inter-American Dialogue: "It's not a dictatorship in the classic formulation. Maduro was elected. But I think he's lost any legitimacy. There has been a gradual erosion of democratic practice, and this is a significant line that has been crossed. To attach the term democracy to Venezuela with this new constituent assembly is on very weak ground. I think it can't be taken seriously."

JOSE MIGUEL VIVANCO, Washington-based director of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch: "Two basic principles need to be present to characterize a government as a democratic one. The first is free, fair and competitive elections. The second is the obligation to govern democratically to exercise power in accordance to respecting the limits of the rule of law, separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, free press, respecting civil society. And you are not supposed to engage in persecution of dissidents and political leaders. At this stage, I don't think Venezuela passes the test as an electoral democracy. And the Maduro administration should be treated as such. In plain language, as a dictatorship."

MARK WEISBROT, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington: "The media has kind of assumed that the assembly was a dictatorship of some sort, but they haven't done anything yet. They haven't abolished the National Assembly. So far, nothing has happened. ... Venezuela is still a very polarized country and there's a standoff between the two sides. Mediation failed last year because neither side was willing to concede anything. There is going to have to be a negotiated solution, with elections. And for those elections to settle the conflict there is going to have to be constitutional guarantees that the losing side is not going to be politically persecuted. That's the only way I can see to avoid a descent into violence and civil war."

LUISA ORTEGA DIAZ, Venezuela's chief prosecutor, during an interview with CNN en Espanol: "I couldn't say that we've absolutely lost democracy. There are still some glimmers of it. But unfortunately if we continue down this road, we will lose all traces of democracy. The trial of a civilian in a military tribunal that is the act of a dictatorship. The detention of people with no formal proceeding, without a judicial order, mass raids, the lack of information on people detained ... especially those who are uncomfortable for the government. They (the Maduro administration) have used criminal law, the police, to disappear, to extinguish them."

FERNANDO BUEN ABAD, Mexican philosopher, in remarks to be the Venezuela-based network TeleSur: The election of the constituent assembly "solidifies the extraordinary strengths of a people who understand what a constitution is. Who understand what a powerful tool the constitution is in order to weave together a framework of collective relations. And who understand that this is a platform to advance and deepen, including to criticize, its own process. We saw a robust lesson in democracy, that in spite of everything, despite tensions from some circles and parts of the country, the gathering was incredibly rich and proposed, in quantity and quality, a reflection that in my mind is a moral lesson for the entire planet."

BENIGNO ALARCON, director of the Center for Political Studies at Andres Bello Catholic University in Caracas: "Democracy does not exist in Venezuela, but it has not existed for some time. What's being installed is an assembly that is not governed by the constitution and has no constitutional limits. It can do practically whatever it wants. But it does not have any political acceptance. People will not obey the decisions they make. The only way to implement its policies will be with repression."

DANIEL LANSBERG-RODRIGUEZ, Northwestern University law professor who is a dual U.S.-Venezuelan citizen: "By its very nature, the creation of a constituent assembly under Venezuelan law delegates most of the traditional functions of participatory democracy to the newly created body, which for the indefinite duration of its deliberations can override the conventional legislature, the presidency and even the pre-existing constitution. Such delegation, if always risky, need not be inherently undemocratic, provided that a majority of the people vote for this process to take place. In this case, however, there were no plebiscites and Maduro is at 20 percent approval rating, lacking any semblance of electoral viability let alone a powerful mandate for change. In a cynical ploy to stave off future elections he can't win, Maduro has hijacked what remained of Venezuela's democracy without popular permission."

The rest is here:
With all-powerful assembly, is Venezuela still a democracy? - ABC News

WASHINGTON A future trivia question and historical footnote, the spectacular 10-day flameout of Anthony Scaramucci qualifies as the most entertaining episode yet of the ongoing reality show that is the Trump presidency. (Working title: The Pompadours of 1600 Pennsylvania.) But even as the cocksure sycophants gobsmacking spectacle stole the show, something of real importance took place a bit lower on the radar.

1) The military says no to Trump on the transgender ban.

Well, not directly thats insubordination but with rather elegant circumspection. The president tweeted out a total ban on transgender people serving in the military. It came practically out of nowhere. The military brass, not consulted, was not amused. Defense Secretary James Mattis, in the middle of a six-month review of the issue, was reportedly appalled.

What was done? Nothing. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs simply declared that a tweet is not an order. Until he receives a formal command and develops new guidelines, the tweet will be ignored.

In other words, the military told the commander in chief to go jump in a lake. Generally speaking, this is not a healthy state of affairs in a nation of civilian control. It does carry a whiff of insubordination. But under a president so uniquely impulsive and chronically irrational, a certain vigilance, even prickliness, on the part of the military is to be welcomed.

The brass framed their inaction as a matter of procedure. But the refusal carried with it a reminder of institutional prerogatives. In this case, the military offered resistance to mere whimsy. Next time, it could be resistance to unlawfulness.

2) The Senate saves Sessions.

Trumps relentless public humiliation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions was clearly intended to get him to resign. He didnt, in part because of increasing support from Congress. Sessions former colleagues came out strongly in his defense and some openly criticized the presidents shabby treatment of his first and most fervent senatorial supporter.

Indeed, Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, warned Trump not to fire Sessions because he wouldnt get another attorney general the committees entire 2017 schedule was set and there would be no hearings to approve a new AG. That was a finger to the eye of the president. Every once in a while, the Senate seems to remember that it is a coequal branch.

3) Senate Republicans reject the Obamacare repeal.

The causes here are multiple, most having nothing to do with Trump. Republicans are deeply divided on the proper role of government in health care. This division is compounded by the sea change in public opinion as, over seven years, Obamacare has become part of the fabric of American medicine, and health care has come to be seen as a right rather than a commodity.

Nonetheless, the stunning Senate rejection of repeal was also a pointed rejection of Trumps health care hectoring. And a show of senatorial disdain for Trump craving a personal legislative win on an issue about whose policy choices he knew nothing and cared less.

4) The Boy Scouts protest.

In a rebuke not as earthshaking but still telling, the chief executive of the Boy Scouts found it necessary to apologize for the presidents speech last week to their quadrennial jamboree. It was a wildly inappropriate confection, at once whining, self-referential, partisan and political.

How do you blow a speech to Boy Scouts? No merit badge for the big guy.

5) The police chiefs chide.

In an address to law enforcement officials, Trump gave a wink and a nod to cops roughing up suspects. Several police chiefs subsequently reprimanded Trump for encouraging police brutality a mild form, perhaps, but brutality still.

Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said it was all a joke. Nonsense. It was an ugly sentiment, expressed coyly enough to be waved away as humor but with the thuggish undertone of a man who, heckled at a campaign rally, once said approvingly that in the old days guys like that would be carried out on a stretcher.

Whatever your substantive position on the various issues involved above, we should all be grateful that from the generals to the Scouts, from the senators to the cops, the institutions of both political and civil society are holding up well.

Trump is a systemic stress test. The results are good, thus far.

Original post:
Krauthammer: American democracy withstands Trump recklessness - The Mercury News

The U.S. governments track record of distinguishing allies from enemies in the Middle East leaves much to be desired. Todays ally is often tomorrows enemy.

The mujahedeen of Afghanistan, the Free Syrian Army, Saudi Arabia, the Iranian-dominated Iraqi government in Baghdad time and again, America is short-sighted about its interests, blind to its enemies, and compromises its values for short-term gain. Americas natural allies in the region, those who share Americas interests and values, observe this with frustration. Few in the Middle East have felt Americas miscalculations more acutely than the minorities of Iraq, particularly Iraqs Christians.

Waheda believes that the KRG will respect the rights of indigenous peoples to determine their own future. President Barzani said he will support a referendum by the Christians of the Nineveh Plain, she says. He will honor whatever they decide. She notes that the central government hasnt given the same assurances. Even for Christians, the matter is complicated.

IDC is on the ground in Iraq, meeting with #Christians in Ainkhawa, the Nineveh Plain, and elsewhere. #MiddleEast #Safezones #BeyondGenocide pic.twitter.com/mC3kZOqATt

Iraqs Christian secular and religious leaders are divided. Some believe that the Christians should be aligned with the central government; others prefer closer ties to the KRG. The notion of a Nineveh Plain Province was first proposed by Iraqis in 2014 before the ISIS conquest of Nineveh. This idea was introduced in a resolution last year by Congressman Jeff FortenberryJeff FortenberryRep: Charlie Gard granted permanent residence status Security fears grow on both sides of aisle VA eyes building closures to boost care under Trump MORE (R-Neb.).

Were asking the Iraqi government to create a province, a governate, Waheda says. We only ask for the conditions to take care of ourselves. The KRG has said that they will honor the Christians of the Nineveh Plain in any vote on their own self-determination.

If there is a vote for independence, the process would be protracted, controversial, and perhaps even bloody. But Waheda insists that Kurdish independence is feasible. There is the capacity locally to oversee self-government, which we already have, but also utilities, elections, oil resources, allows us to be free of foreign domination, she adds, referring to Iran and its affiliated militias, which have a presence on the Nineveh Plain, recently freed from ISIS. There is also a sense that Iraqs government is a pawn. In Baghdad, one group (Shia) are making decisions for all of Iraqs people, including minorities.

Middle East Christians celebrate Christmas under yoke of genocide (Op-Ed) https://t.co/ul46xLykFS via @thehill

The sense of frustration with Baghdad isnt shared by all Iraqi Christians. Many Assyrian Christians (most now living in the West) claim that the Kurdish militia, the Peshmerga, didnt protect them as ISIS overran the Nineveh Plain in 2014, and didnt permit the Christians or other minorities to defend themselves. Many other Christians, including those returning to their homes, point out that it was predominantly Kurdish Peshmerga who fought to liberate the Nineveh Plain.

Our villages and our lands are among the Kurds, she says.This doesnt mean that we dont have challenges with the Kurdish region. There are always challenges, but the Kurdish people have accepted us (Christians), more readily than others. Even today we have many homes in Baghdad and Basra where property was stolen without compensation. Christians can also hold posts in the KRG in a way that they cannot with the central government.

Few people living in the areas overrun by Daesh have confidence in the central government, she says. The only area where Christians seem to agree is the creation of a province in the Nineveh Plain, though there isnt consensus on the means to bring it about.

The Nineveh Plain region has vast natural resources and could theoretically be self-sufficient. Christians should of course benefit from the natural resources on the Nineveh Plain. They can and should use these resources to rebuild. Waheda says the Christians dont currently benefit from Iraqs petrol wealth.

Kerry determines that ISIS is committing genocide against Christians: https://t.co/BuxX840Apf pic.twitter.com/vwaivzolUs

Corruption in Iraq, like the rest of the Middle East, is really beyond the comprehension of most Americans. Its both a symptom and cause of Iraqs sectarian troubles. Decentralized governance, which has generally worked for Iraqs Kurds, is a model many continue to believe is the only solution for Iraq. We believe that we can secure the Nineveh Plain with local defense forces, she says. We also ask for international observers during any transition period not soldiers but simply to create a haven, as the West did for Christians in the 1990s.

She notes that the KRGs ruling Barzani family has historically had strong ties with the Christian community. How many other Muslim political leaders meet with the Pope? she asks. His family attends mass with the people of Ainkhawa at Christmas. This is more than a political gesture. There is a genuine affinity.

The presence of women in public life in the Middle East is far less common than it is in the West, though there are of course exceptions. Those exceptions speak volumes both about the cultures that produce them and the women themselves. There is no blustering or outrage or grandstanding in Waheda. Like other Middle Eastern women in public life, she has a quiet strength and perseverance qualities that Christians and other minorities in the region share.

Christianity in Iraq has been devastated by war for a generation, culminating with the ISIS genocide. There is an urgent need to secure and revitalize the Nineveh Plain region. Much blood American and Iraqi, Christian and Muslim has been shed for freedom in Iraq. The Christians who remain, like Waheda, are committed to rebuilding.

It should come as no surprise that Americas natural allies in the Middle East those who share its values and interests have turned to the democratic process without outside prompting. The looming question is whether America, for all its talk of democracy in the region, will honor the democratic will of those in the region, even if it threatens existing borders.

Andrew Doran writes about U.S. foreign policy and human rights in the Middle East. He serves on the Board of Directors for In Defense of Christians (IDC), a nonprofit that advocates for minority communities in the Middle East.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Originally posted here:
Kurds, Iraqi Christians want democracy for themselves - The Hill (blog)

Joshua Muravchik is a distinguished fellow at the World Affairs Institute.

The State Department is reportedly considering a new mission statement that will make no mention of encouraging democracy abroad. A White House aide recently suggested similar thinking would guide the presidents pending National Security Strategy statement.

If Trump administration officials move forward with these plans, they will be breaking sharply with decades of U.S. foreign policy. They may believe that democratization is a vague and ineffective goal with no place in a hard-bargaining approach that puts America first. But that conclusion defies the experience of presidents Ronald Reagan and Harry S. Truman, two of the toughest and most effective guardians of American national interests.

When Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter, he promised a more hardheaded foreign policy. Some of his supporters thought this meant jettisoning Carters emphasis on human rights, which they saw as a symptom of weakness. Alexander Haig, Reagans first secretary of state, declared: International terrorism will take the place of human rights in our concern. Accordingly, the Reagan administration proposed as assistant secretary for human rights someone who had declared flatly that human rights had no place in foreign policy.

When the Senate shot down that nomination, Reagan left the post vacant for months while his team deliberated more carefully over the issue. In the end, it repudiated Haigs view, declaring: Human rights is at the core of our foreign policy. Other aides more sensitive to soft power than Haig, whose background was military, persuaded Reagan to overrule him.

Reagan, however, refined the policy to place more emphasis on democratization. There was often little to gain, he concluded, by merely criticizing or punishing autocrats for abuses here and there. The more meaningful goal was to erect systems of government in which abuses were rarer and subject to redress in other words, democracy.

Thus, our government set to work more systematically than ever to foster democratization. The policies and mechanisms Reagan put into place furthered a global tide in which the world went from about one-third democratic to nearly two-thirds, according to Freedom House and various scholarly studies. Of course, U.S. actions alone did not cause this transition, but they contributed to this. U.S. support for Polands Solidarity movement and dissidents elsewhere in the Soviet bloc helped bring down that empire, while American arm-twisting persuaded generals to abandon military rule in El Salvador and other Latin countries. More gentle pressure did much the same in South Korea and the Philippines.

This tide brought better life chances to millions. It also made the world more peaceful, prosperous and friendly to the United States. And it washed away the Soviet Union, ending the Cold War. That denouement was the greatest boon to American security since World War II.

Nor was this the first instance in which the spreading of democracy overseas redounded to Americas profound benefit. Following World War II, President Truman faced the question of what to do with Japan and Germany, the defeated enemies that we now occupied.

Germany had experienced democracy only once, briefly, during the Weimar Republic. The closest Japan had come to democracy had been an era in the late 18th and early 19th centuries when political parties came to the fore. In both countries, these progressive experiments had collapsed, enjoying too little popular support. Thus, knowledgeable observers doubted that democracy could be implanted in either country. As the eminent anthropologist Ruth Benedict put it, the United States could not create by fiat a free, democratic Japan.

Nonetheless, Truman decided on a policy of democratization, and it succeeded beyond expectation. As the scholar Robert Ward quipped about Gen. Douglas MacArthur and his aides who transformed Japan, had they known more [about Japanese history and traditions] they would have accomplished less.

Aside from making it possible for generations of Japanese and Germans to live in freedom, their democratization turned them into cornerstones of Americas security policies in Asia and Europe and of the post-World War prosperity on which America battened.

Needless to say, Americas democracy-building efforts, whether during the occupations or the Reagan years or since, have been replete with failures and mistakes. Errors abounded even in the great success story of Japan, and they were even more abundant in the debacle of our more recent occupation of Iraq.

No formula explains adequately why democracy takes hold some places and not others. Some countries where conditions seem ripe say, Russia or China with high education levels and growing economies prove stubbornly resistant. Others where the odds seem daunting say, India or Botswana have long practiced democracy.

Nor is democracy promotion a science. Some approaches have proved fruitful in some places, not in others. We can all agree that, despite the brilliant success of the period immediately after World War II, America should not invade countries solely to impose democracy. Rather, this project must advance by peaceful means, and often in ways that will be constrained by other considerations, since democratization will rarely be our only objective.

Slogans aside, every American president has naturally put America first. But our wisest and most effective leaders have recognized that a more democratic world does not merely gratify our ideals but also admirably serves our national interests.

Read the original post:
What Trump and Tillerson don't get about democracy promotion - Washington Post