Aggressive Democracy
There are practically no honest despots anymore. It is testament to just how thoroughly democracy has won the war of ideas that even the most stalwart of absolute rulers still feel inclined to pay lip service to democracy. Even Turkmenistan’s Niyazov has referenced presidential elections in the future.
Tajikistan is not the bottom of the barrel in terms of authoritarianism (though it is not winning any prizes either), but President Rakhmanov is not wasting any time in ensuring that that formality for the legitimacy of a modern country – a presidential election – goes exactly how he wants it to.
A former ally of the central government in the civil war is currently being prosecuted in a secret trial on charges of “engaging in dozens of criminal acts, including allegedly conspiring to overthrow Rahmonov.”
The opposition was not surprised by the secrecy of the trial, or the nature of the charges, and protested it just to attract international attention.
Local NGOs reporting on the rule of law in the country say that this is a trend, not an exception.
Galina Derevenchenko, from the Republican Bureau on Human Rights and Rule of Law, told RFE/RL’s Tajik Service that 2005 was marked by the arrests and trials of several opposition figures.
She also noted the “substantial number of violations” of electoral standards during the parliamentary elections held in February 2005.
While Tajikistan has made progress on many fronts, it already seems as though the 2006 presidential elections will fall substantially short of the low regional standard set by Kazakhstan this past December.
on February 23rd, 2006 at 4:10 pm
This just shows how genuine is the belief in democracy as an ideology and the system of government in the former USSR.
At times I think people in these countries are just not built to cope with so much personal and political freedom that is enjoyed in a democratic society. All this inevitably leads me to a question: is true democracy at all possible in these countries?
The answer is probably not. My take is that soon in all post-soviet territory a new ideology will emerge that will consist of elements of free market and an autocratic rule. That is unless the democracies of this world try to educate the ideologically lost states by setting a good example.
When I think of the developments in the political arena I am puzzled with so many controvercies.
What is a true democracy? What country could be used as a benchmark and how do you explain the recent erosion of human rights in a country that is thought to be the cradle of democracy? Is there a choice of how democratic a country could be?
I am sure political leaders in these countries do ask themselves these questions and depending on the information feedback, make their own conclusions. I just hope that these conclusions benefit the ordinary people who live in these countries.
on February 28th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
I’m more optimistic than you there, Tajik Boy. Looking at the historical record of the Western democracies, at many points in the past, they were at least as undemocratic as Tajikistan appears to be now–cf. that women couldn’t vote in the US or the UK until the 1920s, and that 40% of adult men couldn’t vote in the UK at the end of the 19th century. But over time, and without bloody revolution, it did become more pervasive and more effectively democratic.
Mostly-democracy and limited respect for human rights are compatible; cf. Israel. Modern Sweden, Australia, the UK, France, Germany–they’re all decent reference points for how a democratic society can be made function well.
on February 28th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
I think I tend to agree with Aidan. It’s easy to forget just how long it has taken Western country to develop to the point they have. Change takes a long time, and ideas are what sustains that progress. While it took a long time, there was a broad concensus about the merits of inclusive democracy, enough to push it forward in fits and starts over the last 200 years.
That is also sort of the point I was trying to make at the beginning of this post; almost no where in the world do you see unabashed despotism. Even the most autocratic regimes take great pains to give the appearance of democracy, and in a way I think that concession is the most important, and will push progress forward.
However, it is easy to see where Tajik Boy is coming from; most Central Asian countries seem to be in the “fits” stage, not the “starts.”
on March 1st, 2006 at 12:05 am
Tajik Boy “This just shows how genuine is the belief in democracy as an ideology and the system of government in the former USSR.”
You’re absolutely right - the fact that they have to pay lip-service to Democracy is in fact a demonstration that Central Asia is ready for such a system. These dictators have to at least keep up an air of Democracy to appease the politically aware. If the region wasn’t ready for democracy, then what was the protest in Almaty at the weekend about? What was the Tulip Revolution fought over? The Andijan uprising?
As others have mentioned, it took decades, centuries to achieve Democracy in the West. In some ways its a shame that we live in a world of such easy communication and global politics. I think if Tajikistan and others were allowed to get on with it, at their own pace, they too would become Democracies of some form by the end of the century. Unfortunately with pressure from the U.S and EU (which is by no means a bad thing), change happens too quickly and is usually entirely cosmetic. Im talking about Universal Suffrage, wholly elected parliaments etc. If these were actually implemented at a slower pace, as and when Civil society as a whole sought them, they might actually become REAL changes. Gradual reform wouldn’t scare the elite of Central Asia as much as the shock therapy, Nazarbayev and the like fear.
How terribly conservative of me…
on March 1st, 2006 at 3:53 pm
That these countries pay lip-service has to do more or less with the fact that democracy as an ideology has won the war of ideas.
The truth is that many countries in FSU still live in an ideological vacuum. They endorse democracy, but don’t have a full understanding of it’s principles and ideas that drive it. Therefore, these countries depend on international watchdogs to tell them how democratic they are. This creates a situation whereby the change is imposed from above. This is the main factor that renders democracy purely cosmetic.
As you have pointed out, genuine transformation takes place within the society and the only way to do it is to increase interaction of ordinary people with those in countries that have such democratic systems. A more pressing problem is how to make democracy fit into the system of values of a nation. It is a tedious process that takes a lot of reflection on the part of a society. The idea is to seamlessly incorporate the democratic principles into the society with its own traditions. From what I can see it could take years to materialize, but it is worth it.
In either case change from above is not likely to produce genuine democratic countries. The question is whether the world would be a better place with fake democracies or whether such a change is possible at all. Do we have any historical proof?
on November 20th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
hundreds of years for democracy to come? well, the western countries, or western led NGOs, which usually monitor, mediate and evaluate democracies in the world, have a different feeling for time now. they want it all happen quickly. they put deadline, make plans and budget and then expect outcomes. When it doesn’t work the way it is wishful, then they start looking for evils, and maybe pull out of the country, making a sign hopeless case. almost all western countries have now a special foreign policy, which is called development, or democratization, where they tend to export democratic values to regions like CA. there are now some success stories with eastern European countries who have recently joined the EU. The EU invested heavily on that process, both financially and institutionally. if there is a coordinated plan, enough resources, and political motivation on both sides, these processes can be accelerated nowadays, we don’t know tho yet if it is that good.