An Alternative Democracy Promotion Strategy
27 March 2006

In a March 27 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Francis Fukuyama and Adam Garfinkle argue for an alternative strategy of democracy promotion.  They dispute the Bush administration’s thesis that democracy can be used as a tool to fight against terrorism, saying that the fight against terrorism and the push for democracy promotion should not be conflated.  Their reasoning is that they argue that the root cause of terrorism is the inability of some elements in society to deal with social change, as opposed to the idea that the repressive conduct of authoritarian regimes leads to the dysfunction of society.  The authors admit that authoritarian systems “do function as enablers of radical Islamism” but argue that rapid modernization is the primary threat to those who turn to radical Islamism.  “It should be possible to effectively stigmatize jihadi extremism,” they write, “without having first to midwife democracies from Morocco to Bangladesh.” 

Fukuyama and Garfinkle argue that many of the Bush administration’s current strategies for fighting radical Islamism result in making democracy promotion harder.  They write, “Many would-be democratic opponents of regimes in places like Syria or Iran now say they'd prefer the status quo to the situation the Iraqis are in.”  The authors worry that the local assessment of American moral authority and American calls for rule of law, fair or not, is related to prisoner abuse, and America’s rhetoric is therefore seen as hypocritical.  Additionally, the administration’s attempts to promote forums for public debate and dissent worry Fukuyama and Garfinkle because they believe that public debate might result in increased radicalism, because the momentum is currently against liberal ideals.

In order to fix the US approach to democracy promotion, the authors offer several new strategies.  One is to refrain from directly linking regime change to democracy promotion, because it hampers the efforts of local democracy advocates.  The argue that early national elections can also have adverse results, and therefore suggest local elections and the development of “non-extremist civil society groups.”

They also argue that democracy promotion money should not be channeled through the State Department, because the lack of American credibility means that “American fingerprints on outside resources” are a hindrance.  Instead, money intended for democracy promotion should be given to NGOs and foreign groups, and “other countries that have recently undergone democratic transitions.”