I spent the morning reconnoitering in Kazan, the capital of the Republic of Tartarstan. A bastion of the Tatar culture, it's a notable departure from Orthodox-culture dominated areas of Russia. Islamic fervor is palpable as the cupola of mosques touch the sky. Arabic and Tatar flood the shops and streets, and even beggars wear Tatar-Islamic clothes. Here in Kazan, Russia melds the cultures of West and Middle East into the gridiron of the suitably unique region. American style crams the Mega-Mall with products in high Russian demand; inside traditional Middle-Eastern hookah lounges blend with Russian cafes and stores, marketing wares in as many different languages.
I spent much of my time with an English-speaking girl, who described Kazan to me in a heavy British accent from a modern Russian's perspective. "Russia is a big place, so of course there must be room for many religions." I remember this phrase in particular because it struck me--only 20 years after state-enforced atheism, there is a sentiment of religious accommodation. Where did this come from?
I imagine that Kazan will likely contain some of the most interesting data. The region calls itself a Republic--the Republic of Tatarstan--but how democratically do people behave? How do people relate their faith, a long imperial tradition, a deeply-rooted culture, and a communist past to a continuing democratic transition? How do they perceive democracy handles the problems associated with the practice of many religions in one big Russia? And what do the people feel is the future of Democracy in the region? O and one more--if Islam works with democracy here, could this area be uniquely suited to function in such a way or could Arabic countries adopt similar structures?
On an operational note--my new friend tells me that Kazan can be a dangerous place for foreigners. I don't doubt her as I creep ever ever closer to the Middle East. I have a few ideas for mission techniques, however, and I have completed the electronic form for recording DPS data online worldwide.
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.
I spent the morning reconnoitering in Kazan, the capital of the Republic of Tartarstan. A bastion of the Tatar culture, it's a notable departure from Orthodox-culture dominated areas of Russia. Islamic fervor is palpable as the cupola of mosques touch the sky. Arabic and Tatar flood the shops and streets, and even beggars wear Tatar-Islamic clothes. Here in Kazan, Russia melds the cultures of West and Middle East into the gridiron of the suitably unique region. American style crams the Mega-Mall with products in high Russian demand; inside traditional Middle-Eastern hookah lounges blend with Russian cafes and stores, marketing wares in as many different languages.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment