All societies place restrictions on what citizens can do, but some restrictions (speed limits) may be more important than others (limiting the right to vote). But one-size "freedom" doesn't fit all: democracy has many faces, and ideas of freedom are shaped over place and time.
Many people in the West may find it difficult to look at more theocratic (a theocracy is a form of government in which a religious institution is the source from which all authority derives) Middle Eastern countries where a priestly class has a huge influence in politics and consider them to be democratic, and their people to be "free". For their part, these countries might look at our secular societies as profoundly morally corrupt and unfree. Similarly, we may look at a country with a single political party, such as China, and wonder how free anyone might feel in such a situation- even though many Chinese do.
At the end of the Cold War, many people in liberal democracies thought they were witnessing the dawn of an era of peace and prosperity around the globe. With the collapse of communism, the last major ideological rival to liberalism had been defeated. Liberal economic practices, democracy, and individual rights and freedoms could now be extended around the globe without resistance and interference from a powerful ideological rival.
As in the past, however, the principles of liberalism were not embraced by all. Still today, individuals and groups in some parts of the globe see liberalism as largely a product of the Western world. The movement to extend liberal economic, social, and political ideals beyond their present geographic borders has ignited new conflicts and poured fuel on some old fires.
You will answer the following question: How do differing ideological perspectives contribute to conflict in the twenty-first century?
The idea of liberal democracies imposing liberalism on another country—by force, if necessary—is not new. American President Woodrow Wilson insisted that democracy be an essential component of the peace treaty with Germany and its allies after the First World War. In a 1918 speech (which would later become the basis for the terms of the German surrender) to the US Congress, Wilson stressed the importance of democracy and self-determination in establishing a lasting peace in Europe. Today, protecting national interests in our increasingly globalizing world is an important part of American foreign policy.
One of the most common arguments for establishing liberalism through intervention is economic self-interest. According to this argument, exporting liberal democracy has both economic and security benefits. In this view, if liberalism can be fostered in a country where it is not present, it will benefit the economy of that country, which will in turn encourage trade with other countries, including liberal democracies. This idea will be explored further in the case study after 9/11 in the next lesson.
Apart from national self-interest, another common argument for imposing liberalism on another country is humanitarianism: a belief that a situation demands intervention for moral or ethical reasons, such as the improvement of the living conditions of the population. For example, philosopher John Rawls argues that liberal countries should not tolerate other non-liberal countries that do not observe human rights and that intervention may be justified in such cases. At the same time, he states that liberal democracies cannot intervene in other countries solely because they do not embrace liberalism.
...Americans should and do feel some obligation to improve the well-being of other human beings. The bonds of common humanity do not stop at the borders of the United States. To be sure, these bonds and obligations are limited by the competitive nature of the international system. In a world where the use of force remains possible, no government can afford to pursue a foreign policy based on altruism. The human race is not about to embrace a cosmopolitan moral vision in which borders and national identities become irrelevant. But there are many possibilities for action motivated by concern for individuals in other countries. In the United States, continued public concern over human rights in other countries, as well as governmental and nongovernmental efforts to relieve hunger, poverty, and suffering overseas, suggest that Americans accept some bonds of common humanity and feel some obligations to foreigners.
—Sean M. Lynn-Jones, “Why the United States Should Spread Democracy” (cited on p 319).
Living in a country with a long history of liberal democratic institutions, you may find it strange that some other countries cannot maintain similar institutions themselves once a freely elected government is in power. However, as we have learned already liberalism was not adopted overnight by countries such as Canada or the United States. As an ideology, it has evolved over a long period, and certain aspects of it have changed as historical circumstances have changed.
As the democratic election of Hitler in Germany demonstrates, liberal democracy has difficulty surviving conditions such as unemployment, inflation, and civil unrest in a country without an existing liberal democratic tradition. In his book The Future of Freedom, author Fareed Zakaria discusses a statistical study of the economic conditions necessary for the survival of a democratic political system.
Of course some poor countries have become democracies. But when countries become democratic at low levels of development, their democracy usually dies. (There are exceptions, such as India...) The most comprehensive statistical study of this problem, conducted by political scientists Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi, looked at every country in the world between the years 1950 and 1990. It calculated that in a democratic country that has a per capita income of under $1500 (in today’s dollars), the regime on average had a life expectancy of just eight years. With between $1500 and $3000 it survived on average for about eighteen years. Above $6000 it became highly resilient. The chance that a democratic regime would die in a country with an income above $6000 was 1 in 500. Once rich, democracies become immortal. Thirty-two democratic regimes have existed at incomes above roughly $9000 for a combined total of 736 years. Not one has died. By contrast, of the 69 democratic regimes that were poorer, 39 failed—a death rate of 56 percent.
—From: The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad by Fareed Zakaria © 2003 by Fareed Zakaria.
Used by permission of W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
Sanctions are coercive measures that can be applied to diplomatic, economic, and cultural relations between states. Commonly non-military, they are imposed by one state against another (unilateral sanctions) or by an international organization, such as the United Nations (collective sanctions).
Historically, measures have ranged from comprehensive sanctions to more targeted measures prohibiting trade in particular items, such as arms, timber, or diamonds. Some sanctions have circumscribed particular activities understood to benefit a target, such as diplomatic, sporting, and cultural relations, as well as travel.
They have also targeted particular individuals and groups who pose a threat to peace and security, including political elites, rebel groups, or terrorist organizations.
Sanctions fall into several categories:
Currently, Canada has sanctions and related measures in place against several countries, as well as sanctions against specific individuals and entities identified as being:
Humanitarianism: a doctrine that promotes improvement to the standard of living or quality of life of others, often through outside intervention
Self-interest: consideration of one’s position, often without regard for the welfare of others
Theocracy: a government run by religious leaders and guided by religious doctrine
War on terror: a term used to describe actions taken to combat global terrorism in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States
The twenty-first century has already produced a variety of ideological rivals for nations seeking to advance liberalism. Some of these rivals represent what remains of ideological blocs that were prominent in the last century. Others have gained importance as their actions have brought them into increasing conflict with the world’s dominant liberal democracies.
Opinions regarding how to address ideological conflicts in the new century are as varied as the conflicts themselves. Some support using armed forces to overthrow regimes that reject liberalism and installing in their place governments committed to liberal ideals.
Others suggest that peaceful engagement of authoritarian regimes will bring about liberalization over the long term without the use of force. Still, others argue that it is folly to attempt to introduce or impose liberal ideas in societies that have no cultural or political tradition of liberalism. Falling within these positions is a range of other approaches to the issue.
Studying the history of the last century can provide some insight into the potential advantages and pitfalls of the many approaches to expanding the world’s adoption of liberalism. One of the clear lessons of the past is that ideological conflict is very complex. For liberal democracies, efforts to prevail in such conflicts often carry the risk of betraying the very principles liberal democracies seek to protect and promote.
You may want to access the following additional resources.