The biggest thing that I have been ruminating on from the material this week is what a bad idea it is to try to force democracy on another country. From the problems that have been created for the US in our relationship with nearly two whole continents worth of countries (Latin America) from trying to push the ideology, to the complications of attempting to force a one-size-fits-all model onto a country like Iraq that has too many barriers to US-style democracy, this strategy does not generally work well without the desire and participation from the people. Otherwise, it is a violation of state sovereignty to force it upon them - not very much different from colonialism. Additionally, if the change is not instigated or wanted by the state itself, there exists the possibility of going back to authoritarianism, or worse yet, a failed state. Avoiding a repeat of colonialism should be a top priority for development professionals.
The second theme that I have been thinking on is related to the previous concept, but has more to do with freedom of expression and human rights that are (or should be) inherent to democracy and how to fight for/protect them as a development professional. For true democratic consolidation to happen, there also has to be a popular desire for equality, which seems to be difficult for countries with elites who have enjoyed the benefits of power and income disparity for centuries. The example of India resonated with me the most, since the disparity is also rooted in religion - which is also a freedom that is imperative to democracy. What do you do when two freedoms are at odds with each other? These are very tricky waters to navigate, and I have been thinking about how to protect two seemingly-opposing rights/freedoms as a development professional. I don't have any conclusions on this yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment