Less Democracy, More Rights

November 1, 2006

            We need to rethink the goal of democratizing the Middle East.

            The reason is not because democracy is impossible within Muslim culture – it is not. It is not because we are counterproductively acting like imperialists when we demand these reforms – even though we are. It is because right now democratically elected leaders in the Middle East are not exactly friendly toward the United States.

Granted, there are not many elections in this part of the world. But every election since the United States invaded Iraq has brought radical Islamists to power. Hamas won the recent Palestinian elections. The Holocaust-denying Ahmadinejad won presidential elections in Iran. The Muslim Brotherhood swept local elections in Egypt.

Even the Iraqi parties who won the most votes are religious Shia parties with pictures of the Ayatollah Khomeini – yes, the guy from the 1979 Iranian revolution – all over their headquarters. They are biding their time until we leave. And if elections were held in Lebanon today, how well would Hezbollah do after their recent military stalemate with Israel?

            We are naïve to think that people around the world will consistently vote for leaders who support United States interests. Latin American countries are routinely electing leftists who criticize the global capitalist system, including in Ecuador, Brazil, Venezuela, and others. Even Daniel Ortega, the Sandinista leader during the Reagan administration Iran-contra scandal, is about to win in Nicaragua.

            An alternative approach to emphasizing political parties, elections, and voting rights is to emphasize human rights. The argument is that how government leaders are chosen is less important than the relationship between government and citizens. Governments that respect the human rights of their citizens will be less likely to threaten global security interests.

The problem with this approach is that the United States does not agree with the rest of the developed world about the meaning of human rights and the appropriate relationship between government and citizens.

            There are two kinds of human rights: ‘negative’ rights and ‘positive’ rights. Negative rights require limited government: speech, religion, press, personal integrity (no torture) and due process are negative rights. Governments must limit their power to respect these rights. The United States generally supports these rights, with the death penalty and treatment of terrorist detainees as important exceptions.

            Positive rights require government action: education, clean air and water, food, housing, health care, and employment are positive rights. Governments must increase their power for citizens to enjoy these rights. The United States generally does not support this notion of human rights: we have no constitutional right to food or housing.

            But when most people around the world say ‘human rights,’ they mean both kinds. This is why the United States has ratified fewer human rights treaties than countries like China or Russia. While our emphasis is on whether citizens can vote or publish newspapers, most people worry about whether they have jobs and health care.

            Our ideological suspicion of ‘big government’ and ‘socialism’ ends up harming our global security interests. We encourage states to lower tariffs, privatize government industry, pay off debts and allow foreign investment. We do not create the conditions for states to provide for the basic human needs of their citizens.

Anti-American groups step into this vacuum. Hamas runs hospitals in the Gaza Strip, al Qaeda-affiliated groups run schools in Pakistan, and Hezbollah builds houses in Lebanon. The Muslim Brotherhood rivals the Egyptian government in the provision of basic services. Latin American populists rail against how global capitalism hurts the poor.

The result is that regular people identify with and remain loyal to the groups that respect their ‘rights.’ The United States will fail if it tries to impose its own notion of democracy and human rights. People around the world are not interested in multiparty elections and tax breaks. They want food, medicine, housing, and a job. They will support leaders who champion these causes.

The only question is whether the United States will prioritize its security interests over its economic interests, accommodate itself to the global understanding of human rights, and also support leaders who provide basic human needs.