Democracy and war

Western mainstream media comments extensively on Yanukovich becoming a new PM in the Ukraine. Some commentators experience cognitive shock, “How comes? Everything was so democratic but then “the enemy of democracy” becomes a new Ukrainian PM? Is it a blow on democracy or not?” Acting in the interests of the major Western powers and being democratic has become synonymous but in reality there are almost no connections.

By democracy we mean nothing but a technical model of government that is copied from Western standards and has several variations. There’s no doubt that for citizens of the Western countries this model works perfectly. So perfectly that 99% of them sincerely believe that this model should also bring peace, prosperity and happiness to every country in the world once implemented. Cause is taken for effect here, I believe.

Theoretically Western-type democracy model looks ideal but after its evident failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Ukraine an open minded person should ask a simple question, “Maybe something is wrong not with the people of these countries but with the model itself?”

It is not hard to see that at the heart of the model of democracy lies confrontation. Conflict and conflict based competition is the essence of democracy. Elections, multi-party system, checks and balances, free press, civil society – they are all about competing, warring, struggling for power, dividing people into winners and losers, fighting for minorities rights. It all works in aggressive cultures where people prefer competition over harmony, criticism over consensus, and change over stability. How comes people of democratic cultures did not annihilate each other so far? I think it’s a result of several factors.

First, the ability to keep aggression "pacified" is a result of a thousand years of never ending wars in Europe between dozens of countries varying is size. The sheer instinct of survival “civilized” European nations and by the time first concepts of democracy were tried European wars were so “civilized” that citizens of some Crapenburg Principality didn’t even know if today they belong to France or to Prussia although the quantity of wars and conflicts never really decreased. Millennium of European never ending wars also brought up a new type of man – a person who is friendly or neutral towards occupying troops, who is ready to compromise, who values above all the life of an individual but doesn’t care much about the fate of his Crapenburg Motherland. But the most important - Europeans learnt to treat conflicts and even wars more like a game that should be kept within “civilized” rules forged over centuries. Fortunately, it all ended with an invention of weapons of mass destruction.

In countries where wars were very rare and where people could enjoy at least a hundred years of peace another type culture was molded. We are talking about India, China, Japan, and Russia. In these cultures conflicts were frowned upon, harmony was more important than competition, unity more important winning, where individual interests were less important then interests of a family, group, nation or country. In such cultures conflicts were subdued, competition highly regulated, team spirit encouraged and individualists ostracized.

Now what happens when an aggressive democratic model is installed in such countries? Let’s have a look. In Saddam times Sunni and Shia lived together in peace, marriages between Sunni and Shia were common, people didn’t even know if their neighbors are Shia or Sunni. Of course, there were small groups of radicals but they were underground. Then “democracy” comes. It was all but natural that major political parties and organizations competing for votes start profiteering on the most evident topic – religious differences. Conflict that was almost invisible before is blown out of proportion. At the same time, unlike Westerners, people in Iraq are not used to treat conflicts as a “game”. They take it very seriously. A country is divided by implacable differences – you belong either to a Sunni party or to a Shia party. What’s more – the so-called system of checks and balances leaves no hopes to resolve the conflict peacefully. We get a civil war but what is the real reason of the civil war – religious differences or a model of democracy that encourages confrontation? More then that – countries that achieved some harmony are strongly criticized by democracy pundits for lack of conflicts and fights.

There are hundreds of examples when a Western type model of democracy gave rise to civil wars. American model was probably the worst although Americans try really hard to implement it all around the globe. Take Latin America, for example. In the 19th century it took only a year or two for a Latin American country to adopt American type “democracy” and a new civil war between “Democrats” and “Republicans” started.

People in your country live in peace and harmony? Then we need to finance some NGO’s that will teach you democracy. “Orange revolution” in the Ukraine is a good example. Wonder why only 15 years ago conflict between Ukrainian-speaking citizens of Ukraine and Russian-speaking Ukrainian was almost non-existent? Why differences between Northern and Southern clans in Kirgizia were so meager?

PS. “Democracy” in countries like India or Japan is very far away from the Western model. Japan managed to live fifty years with a one-party parliament, symbolic checks and balances system, incredible lack of any political dissent on TV and in newspapers. Things are not better in India.