Friendly Dictators and Hostile
Democracies
Taking the risk out of civil society
by Michael Barker
www.zmag.org, November 3, 2006
Commonsense dictates that it would be
easy to obtain public support in the Western world for the promotion
of democracy in non-democratic countries, which in part is one
reason for the success of overt political interventions undertaken
in the name of democracy by groups like the National Endowment
for Democracy (NED) and other "democracy promoting"
organizations (www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NED). However,
who makes the final decision as to whether any given country needs
to be democratized or to put it another way, is democratic enough
to be "spared" from intervention? This complicated decision
is not necessarily left to individual countries, even though a
country like the US may appear to be "acting on behalf of
a US elite" when promoting democracy. Robinson concludes
that they are in actual fact "playing a leadership role on
behalf of an emergent transnational [capitalist] elite."
(1) Considering these propositions, one might conclude that any
non-democratic country supporting this transnational elite will
be less likely to be democratised.
History shows us that there are "good"
dictators and bad dictators, which basically depends on their
position with regard to transnational elites. For example for
many years both Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, and Saddam
Hussein in Iraq were considered to be "good" dictators
due to their usefulness to various Western governments, but later
on, when they stopped being so useful both turned "bad."
The Marcos example is interesting, because the US was effectively
"forced" to promote polyarchy in the Philippines, as
grassroots movements' resistance to the dictator were becoming
so popular that the collapse of his regime seemed inevitable to
the US government. Therefore, in 1985 the US successfully intervened
to ensure that Marcos was replaced with the "right"
elite, instead of leftist popular organisations who had led the
opposition to Marcos's regime until then. (2) On the other hand
Hussein's transmogrification from "good" to "bad"
was due to the conflicts concerning the oil reserves he was holding
and his invasion of Kuwait. On the contrary, repressive elites
in countries providing reliable oil sources to the West (Kuwait
and Saudi Arabia) were ignored by "democracy promoters."
(3) Likewise, strategically placed allies, who have proven their
usefulness by embracing the "war on terrorism", for
example Azerbaijan, Egypt, Pakistan and Uzbekistan have been left
alone. The Guardian newspaper noted this selective support for
democracy, reporting that: "While the Serbs and the Ukrainians,
for example, benefited from US support and money, the Uzbeks and
Azerbaijanis are bitter about the lack of American backing in
the face of formidable repression." (4)
As in the other color revolutions, thousands
of protestors took to the streets in Azerbaijan in October 2003
after fraudulent elections, in which authoritarian Heydar Aliyev
passed the reigns of the country on to his son, Ilham Aliyev.
Unlike in other successful color revolutions the government in
Azerbaijan "launched a brutal crackdown on the political
opposition immediately after his election." (5) The crucial
difference was that Azerbaijan's government was already serving
a useful purpose for transnational elites, so instead of facilitating
a revolution US diplomats "pressur[ed] the opposition to
compromise"; US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld even congratulated
Ilham on his election victory. (6) Prior to 9/11 Azerbaijan was
considered an international pariah due to its atrocious human
rights record (subject to US economic sanctions), but after becoming
one of the first countries to offer assistance in the "war
on terrorism", it now ranks alongside other fore-mentioned
"good" authoritarian states. Consequently, US sanctions
were lifted and military aid started flowing (in 2005 this aid
was doubled to nearly US$23 million). Azerbaijan is also supporting
American and British energy interests in the development of the
US$3.2 billion Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan pipeline - an "oil pipeline
set to carry a million barrels of Caspian oil daily to Turkey
and the American market." (7) In the November 2005 parliamentary
elections, Ilham Aliyev was able to maintain his hold on power
through US support.
Like Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan's gruesome
dictatorship, led by President Islam Karimov, has been a strong
supporter of the "war on terrorism" and was rewarded
with US$500 million in aid from the US in 2002 (of which, US$120
million was for military aid, and US$79 million went to Uzbekistan's
secret police). (8) Interestingly, this strong support does not
exempt Uzbekistan from US "democracy promotion" efforts,
because it seems that as far as the US is concerned it would be
more advantageous (PR-wise) to have a less brutal elite running
the country. This has resulted in the US spending almost US$32
million to encourage "democratic reform" in Uzbekistan
between 2003 and 2004. (9) This support probably serves more as
a propaganda tool for US foreign policy rather than as any serious
effort to challenge Karimov's government. So while Belarus meets
strong international criticism for its attempts to kick out unwanted
"democracy promoters", Uzbekistan's ejection of such
groups has been met by silence, even during the run up to the
December 2004 parliamentary elections. (10)
"Good" dictators are often able
to avoid the vagaries of the ubiquitous democracy promoters, but
"bad" dictators (that is, Belarus's Lukashenko) or "hostile"
democracies (those prone to challenging transnational elite interests,
e.g. Chile in the 1970s) can't avoid the unwanted and in some
cases unwarranted attention of the harbingers of "democracy."
When Bulgaria held its first democratic elections in 1990 and
the old communist party won (renamed the Bulgarian Socialist Party),
the "democracy promoters," who had already injected
US$2 million (through the NED) into Bulgarian organisations in
an attempt to influence the election, were roused to full alert
to undermine the election results. This happened despite the fact,
that of all the international observers present, only the Americans
were unhappy with the electoral process. (11) Subsequently, the
NED ramped up the "democratic" ante and provided:
"generous funding and advice to the
specific opposition groups which carried out a campaign of chaos
lasting almost five months: very militant and disruptive street
demonstrations, paralyzing strikes, sit-ins, hunger strikes, arson
parliament was surrounded, the government was under siegeuntil
finally the president was forced to resign, followed by some of
his ministers; lastly, the prime minister gave up his office."
(William Blum, 2000, Rogue State, p. 157)
New elections were held in 1991 and "democracy"
prevailed when the US-backed opposition party was voted in (with
externally supplied "democratic" support). (12)
A current example of democracy being "promoted"
in a democracy is Venezuela. Both the US government and the US
media are uncompromisingly hostile to Hugo Chávez's government
which was democratically elected in 1998. (13) It appears that
Chávez has drawn the attention of the "democracy promoters"
by promoting the "wrong kind" of democracy, popular
democracy instead of polyarchy. In fact, the NED has been busy
financing "democracy" in Venezuela since 1992, supporting
Venezuela's pro-US opposition party and even supporting the 2002
attempt to overthrow Chávez's government. (14) The NED
has also provided ongoing funding to the Solidarity Center, a
group with close associations to the organisations involved in
the major strike actions against Chávez in 2003. (15)
"Democracy promotion" activities
are also playing an increasingly important role in determining
the shape of civil society in Iraq, with the US providing more
than US$100 million in 2004 towards this goal. As in all previous
examples, this funding appears to be designed to promote polyarchy;
government documents show that money was only distributed to groups
the US considered to be "democratic or moderate." (16)
Lastly, and more ominously still, other techniques to marginalise
and reduce dissenting voices in society have even included the
creation of "peace camps" for children and youths, which
USAID reported to have "prevented [a Haitian] demonstration
from being larger and giving greater legitimacy to the protesters."
(17)
Conclusions
"There are those that are marginalised
and pushed aside, and then there are those that the US cannot
or it is not in the interest of US foreign policy to marginalise
or challenge, and then they attempt to co-opt these organisations
and to moderate them. Very often you get well intentioned people
and you get people who have a legitimate political agenda: democratisation,
regime change from an authoritarian regime, and so forth, that
because structural or on-the-ground circumstances don't allow
anything else, become sucked up in US and transnational elite
foreign policy operations or interventions." (William I.
Robinson & Jonah Gindin, 2005, The Battle for Global Civil
Society)
Unfortunately, there are no magic bullet
solutions to the problems outlined in this four-part article,
but perhaps the best way to tackle the critical problem of the
purchase of democracy is to talk about it. Talking is something
that has yet to happen, but needs to, urgently. While this paper
has focused on the US's democracy promoting efforts, similar organisations
and groups exist all over the world and the activities of these
groups have for the most part been ignored. In 1998, the Australian
government created the Centre for Democratic Institutions, described
by the NED as their "sister institution in Australia";
yet to date, there has been almost no critical examination of
its role in society. (18) In the UK there is the Westminster Foundation,
which also has eluded any critical commentary. Thus, any dialogue
around the promotion of democracy could begin with the exploration
of the activities of local "democratic promoting" organisations
and how their work is tied to the larger, more powerful agents
of democracy in the US and the agenda of the emergent transnational
elite.
Many democracy promoting activities may
be welcomed by under funded and repressed social movements all
over the world, including those in rich democratic countries like
Australia and the UK. However, even though some of these movements
may be supported by "democracy promoters," they might
not be aware that selective support can erect funding barriers
to progressive social movements challenging the status quo. For
example, the Australian government recently cut all its funding
for any environmental organisations involved in advocacy work,
effectively making environmental educational work increasingly
untenable. Thus democratic governments are working to promote
polyarchy at home as well as abroad, with financial rewards attracting
talented activists or organisers to the best funded (read: elite
friendly) organisations. At some point, activists in democratic
countries may have to rely solely on corporate funding from "socially
responsible" corporations. Already corporate spending on
political philanthropy is massive and a recent study of Fortune
500 companies estimated that:
"the corporate outlay on political
philanthropy in the 2000 election cycle [in the US] was probably
a minimum of $1-2 billion. This compares to roughly $200 million
on PAC contributions and $400 million on soft money contributions.
The clear picture that emerges is that CSR [Corporate Social
Responsibility] is a resource that corporations can and do use
to advance their objectives in the political arena." _(Gretchen
Sims, 2003, Rethinking the Political Power of American Business:
The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility, Unpublished PhD thesis,
Stanford University, pp. 166-167; For further details see, Sims,
2003, Hidden Power: Corporate Social Responsibility and Business
Political Power, http://millercenter.virginia.edu/pubs/mc_report/vol19_num3.pdf)
International philanthropist George Soros's
foreign "democracy promoting" initiatives are well known,
but his recent efforts to "promote democracy" in the
US are less established. In the November 2004 presidential elections,
Soros provided US$10 million (of an estimated total of US$75 million)
to a NGO initiative called Americans Coming Together, which campaigned
in an attempt to defeat Bush. (19, 20) Many people in progressive
social movements would agree that working to defeat Bush is a
laudable goal, but the precedents set by such privately funded
activities may be dangerous and need to be discussed within the
wider context of other international "democracy promoting"
schemes. For example, in Belarus the government has become so
concerned about US manipulated social movements, that it passed
an anti-extremism bill to clamp down on all street protests. (21)
In the future, such changes will continue to make it harder for
social movements - especially those not aligned with transnational
elite interests - to make any headway into promoting popular democracy.
This is an intolerable situation, and Robinson suggests "that
exposing and denouncing and fighting against this new type of
intervention [the faking of civil society] should top the agenda
of the global social justice movement and of international solidarity
work"; however, this will be difficult to do within the confines
of our current corporate media systems. (22) Therefore, any efforts
to bring discussion of the "promotion of democracy"
into the public sphere should be carried out alongside efforts
to reform the mass media itself.
Michael Barker is a doctoral candidate
at Griffith University, Australia. He can be reached at Michael.J.Barker
[at] griffith.edu.au
The full article was presented by Michael
Barker at the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference
(September 2006), see http://www.newcastle.edu.au/school/ept/politics/apsa/PapersFV/IntRel_IPE/Barker,%20Michael.pdf
For further information on groups involved
in the "promotion of democracy" see: http://www.iefd.org/
and http://inthenameofdemocracy.org
_References:
(1) Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy, p.
20._(2) Ibid., pp. 117-145._(3) Denis J. Sullivan, 'The US Egypt
Partnership: Are Human Rights Included?', in Debra Liang-Fenton
(ed), Implementing US Human Rights Policy: Agendas, Policies,
and Practices, (United States Institute of Peace Press, 2004),
pp. 401-431._(4) Annon, 'Rotten regimes', The Guardian (UK - Foreign
Pages), 6 June 2005, p. 16._(5) Nick P. Walsh, 'US sidles up to
well-oiled autocracy', The Guardian (UK), 2 July 2004, _http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1252221,00.html
(6) Bradley Graham, 'Rumsfeld discusses tighter military ties
with Azerbaijan', The Washington Post, 4 December 2003, p. 23;
Michael Mainville, 'Opposition activists eager to mount revolution;
"wait" is the word from leaders worried about lack of
support', The Washington Times, 16 November 2005, p. A12._(7)
Walsh, 'US sidles up to well-oiled autocracy'._(8) Martin Samuel,
'Boiling butcher's bill is paid for by Bush', Irish Independent,
17 May 2005, http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=36&si=1397423&issue_id=12482&eid=123501
_(9) Olcott, Central Asia's Second Chance, p. 256._(10) In 2005
Karimov crushed his opposition when 500 demonstrators were killed
during a protest opposing his regimes corrupt and arbitrary detentions.
However no critical investigations or reports were forthcoming
from the international community, and instead the US government
followed the Uzbek government's line in blaming the protestors
for the violence, and more specifically 'Islamic terrorists.'
For further details see Chaulia, 'Democratisation, Colour Revolutions
and the Role of the NGOs'._(11) Blum, Killing Hope, pp. 315-316._(12)
During the 1980s the NED even took steps to 'promote democracy'
in Europe, where it spent US$1.5 million to counter the rising
power of leftist groups in France (see B. Raman, 'The National
Endowment for Democracy of US', South Asia Analysis Group, 2000,
http://www.saag.org/papers2/paper115.html _(13) Justin Delacour,
'The Op-Ed Assassination of Hugo Chávez' Extra!, Vol. 18,
No. 6 (2005), pp. 24-27. _(14) Bart Jones, 'US Funds Aid Chávez
Opposition', National Catholic Reporter, 2 April 2004, http://www.ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2004b/040204/040204a.php;
Harley Sorenson, 'National Endowment for Democracy's feel-good
name belies its corrupt intent', San Francisco Chronicle, 17 November
2003, http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1117-06.htm
_(15) Kim Scipes, 'AFL-CIO in Venezuela: Déjà Vu
All over Again', Labor Notes, 2004, http://www.labornotes.org/archives/2004/04/articles/e.html
_(16) Lisa A. Croke & Brian Dominick, 'Iraq's election: controversial
US groups operate behind scenes on Iraq vote', The New Standard,
13 December 2004, http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1311;
K. J. Saltman, 'Creative Associates International: Corporate Education
and "Democracy Promotion" in Iraq', The Review of Education,
Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies 28 (2006), pp. 25-65._(17) USAID
cited in Kevin Skerrett, 'USAID Boasts "Success" with
Pacification Program in Haiti', Znet, 10 October 2005, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8906_(18)
Louisa Coan, 'Promoting Democracy in Asia', Congressional Testimony
by Federal Document Clearing House, (1997); Michael J. Barker,
'Fidel Ramos and the Australian Centre for Democratic Institutions',
Znet, 16 April 2006, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10106
; for a recent examination of the "promotion of democracy
in Canada see, Anthony Fenton, 'Legitimizing Polyarchy: Canada's
Contribution to "Democracy Promotion" in Latin America
and the Caribbean', Znet, 29 October 2006, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=102&ItemID=11290
_(19) Soros is chairman of the Open Society Institute (OSI), a
well know 'democracy promoting' organisation whose annual budget
has at times reached US$450 million. OSI has 'promoted democracy'
all over the world, especially in Eastern European countries where
it has played an important role in challenging socialism, but
it now has its sights firmly set on democratising China. For further
details, see Heather Cottin, 'George Soros, Imperial Wizard',
CovertAction Quarterly, Vol. 74 (2002). _(20) Leslie Wayne, 'And
for his next feat, a billionaire sets sights on Bush', The New
York Times, 31 May 2004, p. 13._(21) Kiryl Paznyak, 'Anti-extremism
bill intended to preclude street protests', BelaPAN, 8 November
2005, http://www.belapan.info/en/analit/561.html _(22) Robinson
& Gindin, 'The Battle for Global Civil Society'; In personal
correspondence to this author (8 January 2006) Professor William
I. Robinson agreed 'that media reform - and the expansion of popular
media and a counter-media - is central to a counter-hegemonic
project.'
Dictators page
Home Page