In democratisation literature it is elites, rather than masses or movements of popular protest that emerge as the principal actors. Throughout history, the reformist forces that take to the streets as regimes topple rarely shape or dominate the new democratic systems (Robison 2002: 102). Analysts of democratisation processes have little time for civil society in their accounts of transition. In short, civil society is expected to provide an upsurge during transition and acquiescence during consolidation, perhaps I response to an elitist fear of ‘too much’ democracy.
I refute the assumption that once a certain democratic framework is in place a democratic content will more or less follow. The empirical reality in Afghanistan, Indonesia, the Philippines and South Korea demonstrate this clash with theory. In fact, many governments worldwide are more democratic in theory than in practice. In advocating democracy, United States’ policy seeks to avoid “populist-based change, inevitably [seeking] only limited, top-down forms of democratic change” (Chomsky 2003: 59).
In questioning and challenging prevailing ideas, it is important to remember that there remains a world of difference between the breakdown of authoritarian rule and the consolidation of democracy. What also tends not to be captured in democratisation literature is that “instead of proceeding in definite stages or unfolding according to a single logic, democratic struggles are shaped by local conditions, historical peculiarities and the uncertainties of political contestation” (Smith 1998: 10). In the media, many rather simple statements, most notably from the President of the United States himself, regarding “a smooth transition to some US-sanctioned democracy” (Mackay 2003) in post-war Iraq are questionable. These comments reveal a widespread misconceived view of democracy as some sort of ready-made commodity that can be handed over to a nation and be implemented more or less immediately (Wilkinson 2003; Young 2003).
The overwhelming focus on the importance of the role of elites in the dominant liberal democratic perspective gives rise to a piquant paradox. Democracy articulated from ‘above’ rather than from ‘below’ is paradoxical (Baker 2002: 170). In fact, the ideal scenario presented in democratisation literature does little to conceal the real situation, where political discourse mutes, distorts or excludes dissenting voices. This paradoxical democracy is currently unfolding in Iraq. Occupation forces have constructed an interim administration of “hand-picked” Iraqis, undermining the right of Iraqi people to determine their own political destiny, as one Iraqi aptly put it, “manage ourselves, by ourselves” (The Age 2003). The elite-centric focus of the occupying forces ignores the fact that “[d]emocracy has to be built locally, in the here and now, and cannot be expected as a gift from above at some point in the future” (Baker 2002: 83). Failure to include Iraqi people in shaping their own future is antithetical to the very ideals professed by the occupiers. Furthermore, “the democracy that exists where I am means more to me than the democracy that exists someplace where I am not” (Konrád 1984: 139-40).
In conclusion, it is not difficult to see how the clash between assumptions and realities can lead to sterile attempts to enforce textbook solutions.
Reference
Baker, G. 2002. Civil Society and Democratic Theory: Alternative Voices, London: Routledge.
Chomsky, N. 2003. ‘’Recovering Rights’: A Crooked Path,’ in Matthew J. Gibney (ed.), Globalizing Rights: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures 1999, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 45-80.
Konrád, G. 1984. Antipolitics, London: Quartet.
Mackay, H. 2003. ‘Iraq: the questions that linger,’ The Age, 3 May 2003, p. 11.
Robison, R. 2002. ‘What sort of democracy? Predatory and neo-liberal agendas in Indonesia,’ in Catarina Kinnvall & Kristina Jönsson (eds.), Globalization and Democratization in Asia: The Construction of Identity, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 92-113.
Smith, A. M. 1998. Laclau and Mouffe: The Radical Democratic Imaginary, London and New York: Routledge.
The Age. 2003. ‘Protestors decry British launch of ‘model’ local council,’ The Age, 3 June 2003, p. 9.
Wilkinson, M. 2003. ‘After war, a hard path to peace,’ The Age, 3 May 2003, p. 15.
Young, H. 2003. ‘Iraq situation calls for a new way of thinking in US,’ The Age, Opinion, 14 May 2003, p. 15.
