Lessons from Iraq for Global Political Theory
Events in Iraq after the withdrawal of the NATO forces are being seen as an outcome of the US led global drive for democratization. How political theory in general and theories of global politics in particular should respond to this crisis is a major question. If analyzed within the framework of political theory and the global discourse on democratization, governance and state building, the Iraq crisis can provide many lessons. It can challenge some of the globally accepted notions since the Washington Consensus. For example, the international community has largely accepted the Western type liberal democracy as the best form of political system and market and global trade driven economies are projected as the best economic systems. Amongst these, state is being seen as a supportive institution required to protect liberal democracy and ensure a smooth functioning of the market. Here I am trying to explain the Iraq affair from the perspective of the debate between the democracy and governance, their interlinkages and their impact on global politics.
The debate of democracy versus good governance has engulfed political scientists since the World War I. Supporters of democracy argue that democracy is desirable in itself since it, a. empowers citizens in a political sense by guaranteeing political equality, b. allows them to express themselves without fear of silence from the state and c. gives freedom to choose those who will control the governance process through regular, free and fair, periodical elections. State in a democratic set up is expected to play the role of a welfare institution, working with an objective of promoting welfare of the people while being within its limits determined by the constitution and its values.
Those who preferred governance, defined in terms of human development in contemporary political theory, over liberal democracy opposed such a democracy calling it an empty notion of empowerment. Political equality is meaningless between those who are economically unequal. This idea of governance was focused in the Marxist notion of democracy and state. In the countries governed by the principles of Marxism, economic well being was given a preference over political equality and openness. It is pertinent to mention here that the idea of development in the Socialist countries was largely focusing on better health care, education, food, shelter and employment, which later became a predominant agenda in the human development theories and global development discourse. Two major differences were: a. in the socialist pattern of economy state was to be a major economic player unlike capitalist economies where market was given primary role and b. political issues were given priority over economic agenda. However, after the Cold War it has been realized that even both these differences were not based on certain facts. For example, even in the capitalist societies state was a major player. Promotion of market as a major player was more of an agenda for global politics and not for the domestic polity. Similarly, during crisis times the issue of civil liberties and individual freedom, which is a hallmark of liberal democracy was given a back seat and state emerged as a police state with all instruments required for curtailing individual freedoms and liberties. In other words, both these differences were more of principles differences rather than of substance. The plight of this debate after the end of Cold War and after 9/11, to be more specific, has been more to accept some of these realities rather than simple having dual notions of domestic and global polity. However, the world has yet not been able to overcome this dilemma.
During the entire period of Cold War this debate between democracy and governance continued. The liberal notion of democracy was criticized for ignoring human development whereas Marxist notion of development was criticized for authoritarian political systems. During the Cold War, these debates were part of the US and Western Europe controlled development agencies and their programs for distribution of aid to the third world countries. Politically, the US led NATO alliance accommodated authoritarian regimes within its idea of international system, as the primary concern was their national interest or geo-strategic interests rather than following any particular political system or type of institutions. This was well articulated in the realist school of thought in international relations.
Those who preferred governance, defined in terms of human development in contemporary political theory, over liberal democracy opposed such a democracy calling it an empty notion of empowerment. Political equality is meaningless between those who are economically unequal. This idea of governance was focused in the Marxist notion of democracy and state. In the countries governed by the principles of Marxism, economic well being was given a preference over political equality and openness. It is pertinent to mention here that the idea of development in the Socialist countries was largely focusing on better health care, education, food, shelter and employment, which later became a predominant agenda in the human development theories and global development discourse. Two major differences were: a. in the socialist pattern of economy state was to be a major economic player unlike capitalist economies where market was given primary role and b. political issues were given priority over economic agenda. However, after the Cold War it has been realized that even both these differences were not based on certain facts. For example, even in the capitalist societies state was a major player. Promotion of market as a major player was more of an agenda for global politics and not for the domestic polity. Similarly, during crisis times the issue of civil liberties and individual freedom, which is a hallmark of liberal democracy was given a back seat and state emerged as a police state with all instruments required for curtailing individual freedoms and liberties. In other words, both these differences were more of principles differences rather than of substance. The plight of this debate after the end of Cold War and after 9/11, to be more specific, has been more to accept some of these realities rather than simple having dual notions of domestic and global polity. However, the world has yet not been able to overcome this dilemma.
During the entire period of Cold War this debate between democracy and governance continued. The liberal notion of democracy was criticized for ignoring human development whereas Marxist notion of development was criticized for authoritarian political systems. During the Cold War, these debates were part of the US and Western Europe controlled development agencies and their programs for distribution of aid to the third world countries. Politically, the US led NATO alliance accommodated authoritarian regimes within its idea of international system, as the primary concern was their national interest or geo-strategic interests rather than following any particular political system or type of institutions. This was well articulated in the realist school of thought in international relations.
By the end of the Cold War two noteworthy developments took place. First such development was the recognition of the idea of democracy got recognition in the global politics discourse after the collapse of the former Soviet Union due to its internal political and economic problems and its inability to manage reform programs. Another such development was emergence of the idea of governance/'good governance brought the issue of priorities of state policies at the forefront in global politics. Initially, the idea of governance only focused on rule of law, market friendly conditions and constitutionalism.
However, gradually both the ideas, governance and democracy were seen as closely linked, and named as 'democratic governance'. Notion of rights based development was seen as a connecting link between the two. It was argued that the democratic political system guarantees protection of individual rights and provides constitutional and institutional safeguards for this purpose. The 'rights based development' depends upon such a political system. The notion of democratic governance came up in the view of bringing these two concepts together.
Apart from these complexities, in political theory what remained ambiguous, and continues to remain contested, is what comes first: good governance or democracy. Another question which remains unanswered is: whether good governance is a prerequisite for democracy or democracy is required for good governance. There are scholars who argue that both these concepts are not causally linked to each other. Rather, both can take place simultaneously, independent of each other, or non of them may occur at all. Answer to these questions is context specific and neither political scientists nor development economists have a theory driven answer to these questions.
However, gradually both the ideas, governance and democracy were seen as closely linked, and named as 'democratic governance'. Notion of rights based development was seen as a connecting link between the two. It was argued that the democratic political system guarantees protection of individual rights and provides constitutional and institutional safeguards for this purpose. The 'rights based development' depends upon such a political system. The notion of democratic governance came up in the view of bringing these two concepts together.
Apart from these complexities, in political theory what remained ambiguous, and continues to remain contested, is what comes first: good governance or democracy. Another question which remains unanswered is: whether good governance is a prerequisite for democracy or democracy is required for good governance. There are scholars who argue that both these concepts are not causally linked to each other. Rather, both can take place simultaneously, independent of each other, or non of them may occur at all. Answer to these questions is context specific and neither political scientists nor development economists have a theory driven answer to these questions.
However, in the aftermath of Cold War, the US administration found the idea of democracy as a useful tool to carry forward its agenda of global hegemony while ensuring its economic supremacy and geo-strategic control of the world. Hence, unlike its Cold War ideological position when it had no objection in developing bilateral or multilateral cooperation with the countries governed by authoritarian regimes, its international policy started being determined by the nature of political system a country had. During Cold War a major justification behind cooperation with the authoritarian regimes was their ability to achieve good governance which was seen as a prerequisite for development of market friendly conditions. However, after Cold War the ideological position shifted under the influence of liberal institutionalists and US administration started giving preference democracy over governance. The ideological commitment of the US became so dominating over its calculation of national interests that for promotion of the idea of democracy it even started intervening militarily or by using soft power in the name of civil society promotion in the countries which had authoritarian regimes. The reality was that the former US allies in the West Asia which had authoritarian regimes became possible challengers to the US supremacy or hegemony in world affairs, especially its economic and geo-strategic superiority since the new world order came out to be a multi-polar world than a US controlled uni-polar world order, as projected by the realist scholars of international politics.
Hence, in order to protect its 'national interests' the US started replacing the existing regimes of these countries, which were governed, in the sense of political theory by authoritarian regimes. However, if we look at the contemporary West Asia, it is clear that these countries were better governed during the 'authoritarian regimes' as compared to what they are today e.g. Iraq, Syria, Ukraine. One major reason was that the authoritarian regimes did take into account local social realities and developed the principles of governance by implanting their own localized notions of institution building, elections, multicultural society, constitutionalism and so on. This is not to argue that these regimes didn't have problems or they were being governed by right methods. The point which I am trying to highlight is that there is hardly any attempt by political theorists to analyze how these regimes did manage a balance between the notions of political modernity and tradition which led to their success in achieving better governance.
Hence, in order to protect its 'national interests' the US started replacing the existing regimes of these countries, which were governed, in the sense of political theory by authoritarian regimes. However, if we look at the contemporary West Asia, it is clear that these countries were better governed during the 'authoritarian regimes' as compared to what they are today e.g. Iraq, Syria, Ukraine. One major reason was that the authoritarian regimes did take into account local social realities and developed the principles of governance by implanting their own localized notions of institution building, elections, multicultural society, constitutionalism and so on. This is not to argue that these regimes didn't have problems or they were being governed by right methods. The point which I am trying to highlight is that there is hardly any attempt by political theorists to analyze how these regimes did manage a balance between the notions of political modernity and tradition which led to their success in achieving better governance.
The case of Iraq is an interesting development within this discourse. It has been highlighted time and again that Iraq was a better governed state in the previous regime than what it is today. Even in protection of minorities, its performance was better than the post-invasion Iraqi government. Today's Iraq is a complete mess and nothing but a state in chaos. What this case makes clear is that institutions of governance and democracy are largely determined by local context. Imposing any particular kind of institutions might aggravate the problem of democracy building rather than solving it. Global community in general and political theorists in particular, has to learn how to encourage different countries to promote values of democracy and governance while maintaining their unique culture, identity and values. In other words, the theories has to learn how to reflect the differences instead of teaching different countries to change themselves as per the emerging or imposed realities of liberal political theory. If this would not happen, the world will witness emergence of many more Iraqs in the coming decades.
