Sunday, November 23, 2014

Blood Sport Politics

PRINCETON – Former US President Bill Clinton gave one of the best speeches of his life at the recent Democratic National Convention. One of the biggest rounds of applause came when he said that President Barack Obama’s appointment of Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State after she had been his principal political rival proved that “democracy does not have to be a blood sport.”

That applause reflected the view of the majority of American voters that US politics has become much too partisan, and that rivals are more interested in attacking each other – “drawing blood” – than they are in focusing on political issues. But what President Clinton was really saying was that Secretary Clinton’s ability to go to other countries and work with her former political rival in pursuit of the national interest is a powerful example of the way democracy is supposed to work.

That is an important point to make, because in far too many countries democracy remains – literally – a blood sport. The value of the ballot is to seize power and then harass, detain, or even kill your opponents. As the slogan goes: “One man, one vote, one time.” Indeed, the National Endowment for Democracy in the US describes some countries as “electoral dictatorships.”

Many fear precisely such an outcome for the Arab awakening, with popular movements toppling despots, only to install new dictators via elections. The only way to avoid it is to be more committed to the process of electing a government freely and fairly than to the leader or party that is elected, even when the victor is frankly inimical to your interests.

That is also the conundrum of US policy in the Middle East in the midst of ongoing revolution.

For 30 years, the US government supported secular rulers who justified their iron grip on power by insisting that the choice was between them and “the Islamists” – whom they portrayed as religious zealots bent on taking their countries back to the Middle Ages. Now the US must convince skeptical populations that it is prepared to do business with elected Islamist governments.

People who have come to believe in US omnipotence and determination to pursue its interests in their region cannot easily believe that its government is suddenly prepared to endorse an outcome that it did not want. Indeed, some Coptic Christian and liberal parties protested against Hillary Clinton during her visit to Egypt this past June, because, in their view, the US must have wanted the Muslim Brotherhood to come to power.

Future US policy must embody a simple but powerful principle: America will engage with and support (through various kinds of foreign assistance) any government chosen through internationally monitored free and fair elections that then governs according to a popularly ratified national constitution, with compliance overseen by an independent judiciary.

Americans do not believe that liberal democracy is the best form of government because what “the people” want is automatically right or good, but because it pits interest against interest. As James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”

A genuinely representative assembly in the twenty-first century will not establish a polity that tolerates political prisoners, censorship, oppression of minorities and women, torture, disappearances, or detention without trial. Governments that live by their constitutional principles, even when they are imperfectly interpreted and applied, should avoid slipping back into dictatorship and are likely to be self-correcting over time.

As long as governments operate within these broad parameters, the US should look to itself before passing judgment on others. Vice President Joseph Biden also gave a powerful speech at the Democratic convention, in which he quoted a line from Obama’s inaugural address: the US should lead in the world not by “the example of our power, but by the power of our example.” Unfortunately, in terms of democratic practice, that example is badly tarnished at the moment.

The US Supreme Court has interpreted the US Constitution in a way that vitiates all restrictions on campaign spending, essentially allowing wealthy American individuals and corporations to buy elections. The support of a multi-millionaire now counts vastly more than that of an ordinary citizen, making a mockery of the principle of “one man, one vote.”

Moreover, both major US parties routinely use their power when they win to redraw electoral districts’ lines to favor themselves and hurt their opponents. And, in some states, the Republican Party is openly trying to impede voting by requiring citizens to show official photo identification, which can be difficult and expensive to obtain. These requirements are a new version of the poll tax, which Democrats in the American South used for years to disenfranchise African-American voters.

Democracy can work properly only if all citizens’ operative principle is: “I may hate what you stand for, but as long as you are elected fairly and govern constitutionally, I will defend to the death your right to compete and win.” If democracy is to be any sport at all, all players must abide by the rules of the game.

  • Contact us to secure rights


  • Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (7)

    Please login or register to post a comment

    1. CommentedAly Kamadia

      "...with popular movements toppling despots, only to install new dictators via elections. The only way to avoid it is to be more committed to the process of electing a government freely and fairly than to the leader or party that is elected, even when the victor is frankly inimical to your interests."

      In other words, be "more" committed to the democratic process "than the leader or party", EVEN WHEN victory falls in the hands of those who harbor HOSTILE interests towards you?! That's a strange way of conducting foreign policy!

        CommentedAly Kamadia

        @Paul A. Myers - Your position is as strange as Anne-Marie Slaughter's. You're willing to be committed to a process EVEN IF that very process leads to giving significant power to those who harbor HOSTILE interests towards you? Such a "commitment" is so absurd it doesn't merit further response.

        CommentedPaul A. Myers

        I agree. Commitment to democratic process, not outcomes, is the mark of a mature people committed to true freedom.

    2. CommentedPaul A. Myers

      "If democracy is to be any sport at all, all players must abide by the rules of the game." Plutocrats never subscribe to this axiom. Weimar Germany in the 1920s and Third Republic France in the 1930s had constitutional republics eroded out from under the citizenry by extreme political groups financed by the wealthiest sectors in the society.

      The United States is exhibiting all these characteristics of a republic under plutocratic assault. Romney wins and a very good question might be will the 2016 election be "fair" in any meaningful sense of the word. Unlimited plutocrat money will be available for propaganda, the federal courts will rubber stamp the hard right agenda, and crucially the state legislatures will disenfranchise millions, possibly tens of millions of voters. Anti-terrorism laws will be strengthened to break-up dissent and break up assembly and demonstrations publicly, while surreptitiously electronic surveillance will be used to build up a massive database covering tens of millions of Americans to forestall organized popular opposition.

      To get the republic back may require massive demonstrations and civil disobedience never seen in this country.

      Blood sport? Elect Romney and spin the roulette table. You may get a real blood sport, not a metaphor.

      Then again, maybe Romney truly is incompetent and the republic will just muddle along in the quagmire for another four more years.

    3. CommentedKeshav Prasad Bhattarai

      A strong article in favor of democracy and ill practices mixed up with it. Also a fine distinction between democracy in your world and democracy in my world -- when I see democracy in your world I got highly exhilarated , even though with so many limitations being developed of late.

      And when I see it in my world I got enraged and feel disgust over it. And your world is responsible for my kind of democracy in ways like this: first you wanted us to copy it in structures that you developed, but not in essence.

      The other – no priority was given to develop democracy that suits the cultural roots and some kind of the indigenous practices of democracy that was being practiced over centuries in countries like India and Nepal were uprooted recklessly and “ democracy of my world” was established with features you elaborated and Paul Collier explained vividly in his books.

      Therefore, enlightened people like you and resources available in your part of the world are expected to make research on how a modern and accountable democracy can be developed in my part of the world- including the Islamic world.

      Only this will help me help ensure my and enrich your democracy – that these days are living with as explained by Al Gore in “The Assault on Reason”.

    4. CommentedRoss Clem

      Guarding society against oppression by its rulers is dependent upon law and by opposing interest groups that must compromise rather than impose their views.

    5. CommentedRoss Clem

      Is the US more committed to its interests rather than to the democratic process?