Friday, July 25, 2008

Discussing a Dream (w/ pics)

Definitely in St. Petersburg, and across the country that I have seen, Russians certainly enjoy much freedom. I did not feel suppressed in any way nor have I noticed any others exhibiting signs of suppressed freedom. Granted, I have not seen any demonstrations against popular political parties but if there is really any suppression of freedom it is not overt. Neither am I surprised that there are no demonstrations against the political culture--Russians in general seem happy with life and freely talk about political affairs. Of course life here is much different from America, but I see lots of smiling people, hear plenty laughter, witness many small kindnesses as Russian tourists visit the palaces that only a few years ago housed the super-elite and no common man had the pleasure of visiting. I also feel less pressure from police here than in America.
One note regards the role of [transliterated] babushkas (old women, lit. grandmothers). In the USSR babushkas played a special role—to watch what was going on and report anything interesting. They are still prevalent around Russia—I have never seen so many old women. They are quick to criticize and you must lend them your ear. They yell at strangers like it is nothing—I sense that though their role has changed, they feel a social responsibility to keep things culturally whole. I suppose that they are quite conservative, but I am not sure.
My companions and I happened upon a political conversation in Saint Petersburg. So as not to contaminate DPS scores I stayed quiet but curious. One girl said that life in the USSR was unimaginable. She was too young to remember herself, but her parents (originally from Kazakhstan and the Ukraine) tell her stories frequently. She talked about how they were issued food cards once every month. They would exchange these for a few groceries—only the bare essentials.
Another girl said that she liked many things about the USSR (although she was not old enough to remember either). Families did not have too lock their doors—the neighborhood was safe. Young people lied together in communal flats. School was free. Housing was free—although cramped (up to four families would live in flat like the one we were staying in St. Petersburg. Scientists were issued cars and private housing. I swear the very next sentence was "People were equal."
The conversation carried on more in accelerated Russian so I did not understand much. The tone was intense, excited, but not angry. What was definitely apparent was a confidence in these young people to talk about political topics without fear to argue and disagree. I was not surprised at the girl's remarks about the equality of people in the Soviet Union, nor am I surprised about her admiration of the communist government. Clearly there are benefits to any socialist system (namely free things), but I think that those who know Democracy and live under Communist Socialism know that the benefits are but smoke and mirrors written in the wind and swift rivers…
Of course this illustrates the impetus for Operation Civil Elixir and future missions of the same kind—Russian young people should know Democracy in its best form and pine for its institution everywhere. Without this foundation of support, Democracy in Russia teeters on the brink of icy cliffs.
I know I mentioned micro-business in the last post, but I promise to get to it tomorrow.
Posted by Conditioning Democracy

1 comment:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
July 27, 2008 at 8:42 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Why Build Foreign Democracies?

Strong Democracies support the national security not only of the United States, but of the whole world. I'll explain this in terms of psychology: most people are in many important ways fundamentally similar. Natan Sharansky' book, The Case for Democracy, outlined an argument for freedom that relied on this belief. Essentially, people everywhere want the same things: peace, security, satisfaction, etc. Free societies will support these ends because people can act toward achieving what is in their best interest. Wars are truly not in the general interest of people. Free societies are safer because people will choose to be safe. When confronted with a simple choice between death and life, in a free society people will choose life.

I can already hear everyone shouting at me: "But they're different! If those people are free, they will all want war--they'll want the destruction of the United States and all the civility and culture of the West!" This doomsday scenario is actually a perfect example of the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE). Look it up on Wikipedia. Don't feel bad if you feel this way, but you are not looking at the whole picture. We all have a tendency to overemphasize the role of the person and under-emphasize the power of the situation. It's impossible to judge what people who are living a fear-based society would do if they were living in freedom. But why would you jump to the conclusion that they are somehow fundamentally different from us? I think people see themselves in a wholly separate manner from the way they see anyone else. Just assume with me for the moment that other people want the same things from life that you do. They want to survive, they have fears, they want to succeed, they want some modicum of happiness, etc. What would the world look like? Probably very similar to the world that we already live in, right? People are placed in different situations. It's hard to imagine someone who would want an ultimately different set of goals in life. And everyone wants to be free. And everyone wants to be safe. And war does not fit into this picture at all. Free societies support everyone's security.

Aside from our own collective security, some have mentioned that strong liberal Democracies have a moral duty to spread liberal Democracy to other countries. I find this argument weak so I won't go there. But you certainly can.

And aside from both of those, liberal Democracies support the progress of science, industry, and economic development. If you think these are bad, then A) I feel sorry for you, and B) ignore this argument and take one of the above. Free societies liberate the innate creativity, ingenuity, and curiosity of humanity. This is what fosters development in these areas.

Proposing "Conditioning Democracy"

After nine years in the Gulag, Natan Sharansky might have conclusively refuted the self-evident nature of inalienability of Liberty in the USSR. Instead, he emerged triumphant, voicing the universal appeal of freedom in his seminal book, The Case for Democracy. With the moral clarity of America at stake, Sharansky writes about the inevitable rise of freedom and Democracy with moral authority like Andrew Jackson spoke about Manifest Destiny and like Karl Marx wrote about Communism: people in every country yearn to be free, and non-democratic governments prohibit this freedom. However with growing resentment toward the War in Iraq, criticisms of the expenditures of the United States on democratizing foreign countries have grown vociferous. The United States is past due for an policy overhaul: Americans want to maximize the impact of every resource allocated to promoting Democratic initiatives. John Prados’s Safe for Democracy identifies five tools that the United States has utilized to promote Democracy: behavior examples, diplomacy, economic sanctions, military force, and covert operations (propaganda). Each of these tools relies on Sharansky’s argument in a large measure for their success; each tool requires that people yearn for their own Democracy.

“Conditioning Democracy” proposes Democratic Propensity Theory to shape the much-needed policy overhaul. With a unique focus on individual endorsement of Democracy, “Conditioning Democracy” relates psychological principles to Democracy initiatives. The United States is missing a sixth tool from its toolbox: conditioning people for Democracy, creating the yearning for freedom from within individuals. Exposing individuals from emerging Democracies to successful Democratic deliberation experiences increases the individual’s propensity for Democratic government. Conditioning Democracy proposes policies that incorporate professional “operational” psychologists into missions that “condition” denizens of emerging Democracies, whole communities at a time, to accept the potential both for participation in Democratic government and Democratic rule of law. If policy-makers consider the evidence that I will present in “Conditioning Democracy,” new policy should both more efficiently use resources and perhaps also save lives.

Search