That title may sound pretty surprising. I’m actually ardently pro-democracy. But implicitly, that means that I’m in favor of sustainable liberal democratic governance. And that sort of governance takes time. In other words, imposing such governance abroad might actually serve to delay “real” democracy in the given area.
Promoting democracy in the long-term sense is a good idea. But if we ought not promote it in the direct sense, then what should we be promoting instead? The answer is capitalism.
In the past (and present, for that matter), I knew plenty of people who despise capitalism for some reason or another. Or, if they approve of capitalism in some senses, they certainly aren’t fans of globalization. Maybe they don’t like the “exploitation” of foreign workers (who clammer to be “exploited” for the higher pay). Or maybe, more greedily, they just don’t like the idea of competing with, say, software engineers in Bangalore and Mumbai. I can point to reasons why those lines of reasoning are entirely flawed, and why, in fact, our economy and job growth benefits from our broad connectivity to the rest of the world. But for now, I’ll make the strategic argument that we build business relationships before “imposing” our democratic will on others.
Politics is divisive. It necessarily divides people down often narrow, partisan lines. Further, it often promotes nationalist sentiment and even ethnocentrism. In politics, even those in agreement are only superficially aligned with each other. But while politics tends to divide people, it is business that unites them. Here, I’m speaking on a global scale. For example, political arrangements between the US and the Indian government have led to much in-fighting in India (w/ the current leadership & the Communist Party over the civilian nuclear agreement). The US/Bush administration has forged ties with the Indian government, but that relationship’s roots are shallow and could change in the next American (or Indian) presidential administration. In contrast, business relationships run deep. The reason: the exchange of human capital leads to an exchange of ideas in the broad sense, and greater cultural understanding that exceeds that which is afforded by grand political maneuvering.
A personal example: I’ve worked with many non-Americans as a software engineer. I’ve hung out w/ them and discussed various topics of conversation with them. The reason was because we were employed by the same company (or, as contractors, they worked with the company at which I worked). In other words, we exchanged ideas that went beyond work-related topics due not to grand political engagements but due to the connectivity afforded by globalized capitalism (globalization). Hence, not only is globalization arguably good in the economic sense, it’s also good in the sense that it brings disparate people together more substantially than other means. Capitalism, in effect, gives people of diverse backgrounds a meaningful and productive means of interaction.
Broadly speaking, it is jobs that are the ultimate antidote to bad governance and to international terrorism. The consequences of immediate and divisive pseudo-democracy in Pakistan might very well be loose nuclear warheads. Jordan, one of the most liberal Arab regimes in the middle east, is afraid of too-soon democracy for a similar reason: the possibility of extremists taking root in that country and reversing the very young democratic system that brought them to power. Or, perhaps they’re afraid that an “untidy” democratic model might lead to a decreased capacity to fight rogue elements, a possible or even likely outcome in countries such as Jordan, Pakistan, or other middle eastern countries. Another example: Saudi Arabia. Think Saudi Arabia would be a great place if democracy were immediately available overnight? I doubt it.
The plan is this: establish business relations that lead to an exchange of ideas. Yes, this route is more effective and substantial than grand political accords. Not that such political arrangements are ill-advised. They can certainly be helpful. But they’re not sufficient in themselves because they don’t provide the deep and rapid connectivity afforded by business & trade. People need jobs to steer them from terrorism’s grasp; they need the connectivity afforded by globalization’s reach to introduce “seditious” ideas, like the idea that men and women have equal rights and that people have freedom of speech and of religion. That comes first, before democracy, if we want democratic governance to last & serve the purpose of long-term peace.