Note: I originally wrote this piece in 2008 when I was a US European Command Deputy J5. I have done some light editing, primarily in format and grammar. I’ve divided the long paper into a series for easier reading on a blog. The National Security Strategy referenced here is dated, but I think the overall content is still valid and important in today’s environment.This is part 4 of the series on democracy and national security.
Lessons in Developing Representative Governments
The history of several key US engagement efforts after World War II clearly illustrates this concept. Let’s look briefly at Germany, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
Germany and Japan rapidly assimilated the rights hierarchy and a representative governmental structure with the separation of powers and rule of law that supported them.
Germany, despite its history under the Kaiser and Hitler, had a clear philosophical foundation that recognized and understood all three components of the rights hierarchy. It had a representative form of government after World War I and before Hitler. Indeed. Hitler was duly elected Chancellor—again showing the potential fallacy of democracy as a cure to all problems. Thus, the development of a representative form of government based upon the western constructs of human rights and rule of law was not that difficult to bring about. The German people were ready for it both philosophically and structurally.
Japan may seem contraindicative to a smooth acceptance of this philosophy and structure. It was a militaristic empire at the end of the war. However, if we look at Japanese history from the middle 19th century onward, we see an amazing ability to change and to accept western ideas in order to develop. The Japanese rapidly transformed from a samurai-feudal form of government to a modern state that defeated Russia in 1905. Japanese acceptance of the western philosophical and governmental structures can be seen as a continuation of their very successful strategy.
South Korea and Taiwan are very interesting cases. Neither had the philosophical nor the governmental structure conducive to the western notions of human rights and representative government. Thus, throughout most of the period from the 1950s through to the early 1980s, South Korea and Taiwan had difficulties with human rights and could not really be considered representative forms of government with structures designed to protect human rights. South Korea and Taiwan needed the time to assimilate these concepts and to create the structures required governmentally, culturally, and commercially to support them. After this evolution, they have taken a place in the commonwealth of representative governments that have formed the rule of law based on human rights with the representative governmental structures to support and protect it.
Perhaps our strategy should not directly link human rights and democracy together. Perhaps we need to think about our strategy in light of our history with representative government and our experiences after World War II. As discussed above, the US has evolved to a far more expansive view of human rights and a more representative form of government over the course of its history. From abolishing slavery in the Thirteenth Amendment (1865) to protecting rights and the extending the vote regardless of race in the Fourteenth (1868) and Fifteen Amendments (1870), to granting woman the right to vote in the Nineteenth Amendment (1920), the US concept of human rights and voter enfranchisement has evolved. Likewise, the US structure has evolved as well with the passage of the Sixteenth (giving Congress greater power to spend) and Seventeenth Amendments (popular election of Senators) in 1913, the Twenty-Second Amendment (limiting the president to two terms) in 1957 and the Twenty-Third Amendment (electoral college reform) in 1961.
Just as the United States has evolved in its understanding of human rights and enfranchisement, we must expect other countries to move along evolutionary lines as well. Few, if any, countries will be able to leap straight from an existing form of tribal or feudal government to a full-blown representative democracy with universal enfranchisement. Even the Japanese took over a hundred years to make this change.
Universal enfranchisement may not even be appropriate initially. Recall Harley’s statement, quoted above about the failure of Kenyan democracy. Voting entails a significant responsibility that requires an understanding of governmental processes and structures and the key issues that shape governmental policy and protecting human rights. Premature enfranchisement could produce governments that are actually antithetical to human rights and the rule of law. The Palestinian elections are but one example of many. Perhaps evolutionary paths like those that South Korea and Taiwan followed may be more appropriate for some countries.
At the same time, we need to keep the lesson of South Vietnam in mind. Like South Korea and Taiwan, South Vietnam had a less than stellar government supported by the US. The crucial difference, however, was there was an active insurgency in Vietnam designed to overthrow what many saw as a corrupt government. The lesson of Vietnam is perhaps less military than political. The US needed a far more robust political and economic engagement to reform the South Vietnamese government. Military engagement could only buy time for this to happen. The same may be said for the current involvement in Iraq. In pressure situations, the US needs to bring all elements of national power to bear to assist the government in reforming, providing basic services and developing and implementing a rule a law.
A More Flexible Strategy Based On Human Rights and the Rule of Law
As we engage with other countries, our strategy should be to promote the hierarchy of human rights and help these countries to evolve and to develop the philosophical and structural requirements to support and to protect them, as well as the policy reforms required. This may not mean a direct push to a democracy. It may mean working with existing tribal forms of government or other structures to ensure the recognition of the hierarchy of rights and to develop a rule of law based upon it. As the rule of law develops, then the governmental structures can likewise evolve to support, sustain and to protect it. And as the experience of Korea and Taiwan show, this strategy may mean a prolonged engagement to produce meaningful results. There will be ups and downs along the way, but prolonged engagement in the rule of law and economic policies will help to ensure a successful transition.
Our strategy should also keep in mind that it is nearly impossible to give another country liberty and democracy. Liberty must be earned—constantly—or it will be lost. Liberty given will soon be lost. Countries need to take steps to secure their own liberty. Our strategy should assist in this process and help countries make peaceful and stable transitions to governments that secure human rights and the rule of law. In this light, significant investments in Security Sector Transformation and Reform (SSTR) and governance are critical. They are also clearly linked: SSTR must emphasize civilian control over the military and the transformation of the military and police from predators to protectors. The US and other developed countries must increase these investments in stability and prosperity and be prepared to stay the course.
However, we need to be prepared that the actual governmental structures that evolve may not be what we would recognize as a democracy. The cultural milieu may evolve a different structure. The specific structure, however, should be less of a concern than whether that structure supports and protects a rule of law that encompasses the entire hierarchy of human rights.
Human rights and the rule of law should be the red line, not a specific form of government. We need to engage each country based upon its cultural, historical, economic and geographical context and work with them the grow human rights and governmental structures that support them.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA