Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
William F. Buckley :: Townhall.com Columnist
Superstitions of Democracy
by William F. Buckley
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


The rapture in 1960 over the independence of Nigeria seems incredible, and was always that, but three words -- anti-colonialism, independence and democracy -- were all that was thought to be needed to justify the jubilation. Nigeria had thrust away its colonial ties and would lead the way to the democratization of Africa. The optimism was bolstered by Nigeria's oil wealth, its robust size (twice California's), and its vigorous population (140 million). The reign of Nnamdi Azikiwe lasted until 1966, but since then there have been military despots until the elections of last week, which promise only continuing chaos.

The disasters in Africa have fed on the hobgoblins of the 20th century, which were that colonialism was inherently oppressive and that democracy was the key to progress and to national and indeed spiritual redemption. An aspect of this terrible superstition is that governments tend to be judged on democratic paradigms.

The African Studies Program at the School of Advanced and International Studies at Johns Hopkins University is a co-sponsor of Afrobarometer, which studies African public opinion. An ambitious survey conducted by Afrobarometer last year informs us that satisfaction with democracy had dropped from 58 percent in 2001 to 45 percent in 2006, but at the same time six out of 10 Africans opine that democracy is preferable to any other form of government.

In last week's elections, Nigerian officials gave themselves credit for their handling of the polling places. But their satisfaction was sharply contrasted to the views of international observers -- for instance, former secretary of state Madeline Albright, who said, "In a number of places and in a number of ways, the election process failed the Nigerian people," and the International Republican Institute, whose spokesman said the election fell "below acceptable standards."

Still we confront, year after year, decade after decade, the surrealistic proposition that progress is measured by the extent of democratic practices. In a brilliant dispatch from Kano, a formerly prosperous city in the north of Nigeria, Lydia Polgreen of The New York Times gave us the true measure of the problem.

Nigeria is the second-wealthiest country in Africa and exports 2 million barrels of oil per day, but the money disappears into the hands of politicians and random profiteers. Observers calculate that, since independence, $380 billion has been wasted or plundered. The straits of the country are best recorded by describing daily life.

"In Kano's Government Residential Area, where the wealthy live," Ms. Polgreen writes, "each household is its own power and water company. Plastic water tanks on spidery legs tower over the tiled roofs, each fed by an electric pump sucking water from a private well. The electric company provides light just a few hours a day, so the air is thick with the belching diesel smoke of a thousand generators, clattering away in miserable, endless unison."

The reporter cites specific cases. "Idriss Abdoulaye sells water from a pushcart for 20 naira a jerry can, about 15 cents, to people like himself, too poor to have wells. He makes about $2 a day, and cannot afford to send his sons to school."

Consider the enterprise of Saidu Dattijo Adhama. He was in the textile business, and in days gone by he produced 3,000 garments a day. Six years ago he was forced to shut down because paying for private generator power to run his knitters and spinners and pump water for his bleaching and dyeing machines left him unable to compete with cheap imports flooding the country in the wake of trade liberalization. 'The reason I went out of business is simple,' he said. 'It is the Nigerian factor. No light. No water. No reliable suppliers. How can I compete with someone in China who opens the tap and sees water? Who taps a switch and sees light?'

There is sentiment for returning to power Muhammadu Buhari, who ruled with a big stick for two years but in a regime in which there was less crime and corruption than at present.

The indispensable requirement for progress is the same in Nigeria as everywhere else in the world. One needs order. China, as the Nigerian textile manufacturer points out, supplies that. After order has been established, one needs liberty, to galvanize individual resources.

What will not do anything to restore life for the semi-dead in Nigeria is cant on the subject of democracy. Do they need a strongman? Manifestly, they do. Forget the superstitions of democracy.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

William F. Buckley, Jr. is editor-at-large of National Review, the prolific author of Miles Gone By: A Literary Autobiography.

Be the first to read William Buckley's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Democracy
Democracy is only as good as its people. If the people are lazy or dishonest or bad at heart, it will never work well. And although it is easy to point out how poorly Africans have run their democracies, can we in the West say we run our democracies well? Democracies in the West have resulted in massive welfare states combined with social permissiveness ruled by an arrogant, almost interchangeable elite that is aimlessly leading Western Civilization to its demise.

Neo-colonialism
It could never happen, but the best thing for Africa might just be a return to colonialism. There were plenty of bad things about colonial rule, but the sad fact is that much of Africa was far better off being managed by Europeans than they have been under the endless successions of despots who have ruled most of sub-Saharan Africa since the end of the colonial era in the 1960s.

Mindless slaughter in Rwanda and the Congo, chaos in Somalia, ethnic/religious strife in Sudan--none of that would have happened if the overdressed white guys from Britain, France and Belgium were still in charge.

Domestic political pressure to do right by the people of those colonies would mean that infrastructure--water, electricity, hospitals and schools--were kept up and running.

All countries should be able to determine their own destinies, but a people have to be READY for democracy. The population needs to have achieved a certain level of education. A national identity that can trump tribal identity (at least some of the time) needs to be established. Civility and the rule of law need to become a habit. A middle class needs to exist in decent numbers.

India is an example of a country that was ready. Nigeria is an example of a country that was not.

Been there...
I was, for five years, an expatriate in what is often considered a strong African nation, very democratic.

One day as I was drivng I gave a lift to an old man walking along the remote road. For the entire trip into town, he kept saying, "You mzungus (Europeans) need to come back and rule us. Life was so much better then." Sad, but true.

Agree
I agree that Africa would be better off under the various European empires. However, tied down by their huge welfare states, none of the empires of old could afford to do so. The British pounds that would go to running the government of Zambia goes instead to housing estates in Sheffield and Glasgow. The French euros that would go to governing Mali go to policing the Paris banuilles where Islamics, many originating from Mali, riot and burn automobiles. What a world.

Not Sure I Fully Agree - - -
quoth Mr. Buckley: "*After* order has been established, one needs liberty, to galvanize individual resources."

I'm not 100% sure about this --

My reasoning is, that it would appear that Mr. Buckley advocates some flavor of totalitarianism to establish order. A strong ruler, European or otherwise, a strongman, who establishes the rule of law. Then, somehow, this powerful person must somehow be persuaded to step down and surrender to democracy.

I don't know of any (successful) historical precedence for such a heroic act of altruism. Generally, once Power is acquired, it is never given up voluntarily. Indeed, there is plenty of precedence for a dictator to take control of the country, who does indeed establish order. But -- that's generally as far as it goes.

I think the problem in Africa and elsewhere is *not* democracy in the hands of people who might not be ready for it, but rather it's the *absence* of any true Free Market. Democracy is, after all, a form or Rule. It's the Majority who are the Rulers. Free Markets are the Absence of Ruler(s).

Not the absence of *rules* -- clearly you need respect for property rights and the rule of law -- just, no Ruler(s). Free Markets can not thrive under Ruler(s) with the ability to control things arbitrarily.

India, for example, is about as democratic a nation as you could ask. Yet it remains steeped in poverty. Why? Because their democracy does not respect individual liberties. Their majority rule is truly a Rule of the Majority, and Their Representatives, vs. any sort of respect for individual rights and freedoms.

(Note that my information is a little dated; their situation may actually be changing for the better.)

E.g., it is almost impossible to start a business there. To do so, you need all sorts of bureaucratic permissions, which are difficult or time-consuming to acquire -- IF you can get permissions at all. The obvious result; no jobs, no investments, no markets, no wealth, no prosperity.

I think a very common mistake is that we tend to equate Democracy with Capitalism. They are *not* the same. Having a democracy makes no guarantees that there will be a free market. Democracy does *not* create peace and prosperity; Free Market Capitalism *does*.

Mr. Buckley mentions the word "democracy" six times in his article -- Free Markets or Capitalism, not even ONCE. Democracy may be necessary, but it is NOT sufficient.

Will people please stop
calling our form of government a democracy. We were established as a Republic. Democracy is mob rule; a Republic is rule by law. They are VERY different.

A Republic, If you Can Keep It

A comment, not an answer
"I don't know of any (successful) historical precedence for such a heroic act of altruism. Generally, once Power is acquired, it is never given up voluntarily."
--Germany and Japan post WW-II received a voluntary return to power after order was restored by the victorious United States of America. To a lesser degree this was also true in S. Kores.
The U.S. is far from perfect, but "The Mouse That Roared" scenario seems the most predictable route to progress as a country in the last 60 years. Where have we failed to win a military/political victory- S. Vietnam and Somalia (if you count it).
Now, why is it again, that so many outside of the US, led by most of the Democrat Party in the US, want us to leave Iraq?? What have the Iraqi people done that was so terrible to go the way of S. Vietnam and Somalia, instead of Germany and Japan?
Obviously this is an over-simplification, we've been in and out of Haiti several times, I think, without much success. But if I was in a floundering not-developing country, declaring war on the United States and surrendering would be tempting- at least if the Republicans were in the majority of both Houses of Congress and had the Presidency. If the Dems were in power, the odds are the US would surrender to my country and we'be be stuck with additional problems, or the Dems would hand us over to misgovernment by the UN.

et tu Mr Buckley
A strong man? China the way toward prosperity?

What was it that made thirteen colonies into the greatest nation the world has ever known?

Truth Justice and the American way. They win every time they're tried!

For Liberty -- on Democracy vs. Republic
You're absolutely right -- this is a Republic with Democratic influences.

But I gave up that fight a while ago. Ain't worth it.

Although thinking about it, it doesn't really tell us much either way. I mean, you have the "Republic of Korea" and you have "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", "People's Republic of China", etc.

I want to see if there's a correlation between a country's Freedom Index and whether or not they call themselves a Republic -- except that's too much work.

Indeed, of 262 nations in the CIA World Factbook, 127, almost half, call themselves some sort of Republic. I can't imagine that half the countries on the planet actually are enjoying the fruits of Liberty.

(66 have no "long name", 17 are Kingdoms, 6 are "People's" something, 8 are Democratic something, 14 are Territories, 3 are Principalities, 5 are Commonwealths, 3 are Federations, 2 are Unions, 23 don't have any adjectives in their long name, and Brunai is the "Negara Brunei Darussalam", whatever the hell *that* is.)

So -- my point is, simply being a "democracy" or being a "republic" really isn't enough. It makes for a nice sounding title for your county's long name in the Fact Book, and is awfully nice de jure -- but where it really *counts* is how much de facto the political system allows for Free Market Capitalism.

I think that's the important piece missing from Mr. Buckley's otherwise fine column.

good points Unca Alby
My question is instead of spliting hairs about the superstitions of democracy, could not some one of Mr Buckley's obvious talents better employed his skills by highlighting the superiority of this nations democratic republic. instead of hinting that what africa needs is a return to colonialism or some orderly strongman?

Brunei
Unca Alby wonders: “Negara Brunei Darussalam”, whatever the hell *that* is.

You’ll recall, I’m sure, that ‘salam,’ like the Hebrew ‘shalom,’ means ‘peace.’ The name of the Islamic Sultanate of Brunei means “State of Brunei, Abode of Peace.”

democracy
Liberty writes: “Democracy is mob rule; a Republic is rule by law.” No democracy is (or, at least, should be) the power of the combined will of the people as a whole, as opposed to ochlocracy which is indeed mob-rule. If your point is that most democracies are in essence ochlocracies, that would be an arguable point; but please don’t corrupt a decent word by making it mean something else. The essence of a republic—the Latin, ‘res publica,’ can be well-translated as ‘commonwealth’—is that it is the concern which is the common property of the entire populace. Clearly, the meanings are similar, and the confusion which you lament is pardonable.
Also, it is possible (though rare) to have a dictatorship which still follows the rule of law.

Republics, I say, don’t have to be democratic (though it helps), but democracies certainly ought to be republican.

The ruler of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (otherwise known as Libya), Col. Muammar al-Qadafi, explains in his “Little Green Book” that all democracies are each in fact the tyranny of a slight majority over the rest of the people and that his country, with his benevolent supervision of Peoples’ Congresses, is really the most democratic government of all.

oops
A poor typo above reverses the meaning of what I intended: for “No democracy is…” please read “No; democracy is…”.

For henny penny -- on Names of States
quoth henny penny: "You’ll recall, I’m sure, that ‘salam,’ like the Hebrew ‘shalom,’ means ‘peace.’ The name of the Islamic Sultanate of Brunei means “State of Brunei, Abode of Peace.”"

No, I don't recall! I'm not that smart!

But thanks for clearing that up!

For movwater -- on Tribes
It occurs to me that the biggest obstacle to splitting the nation along historical tribal boundaries are very similar to such obstacles in Iraq. Such a split puts more oil under one tribe's lands than another's.

Bush should read Buckley
There are elements in both liberal and conservative circles in America who clamor that democracy is a panacea for corruption, extremism and poverty.

Absurd.

If the foolhardy experiment by a clueless Bush administration on setting up a "democracy" in Iraq is any example, then we need to rethink the flawed assumptions which undergirded that debacle.

Democracy, or any form of representative government, requires a set of cultural traditions and values that respect dissent and value tolerance of various beliefs.

It is a form of "cultural paternalism"(God, how I despise that term which the left has so grievously corrupted thru misconstruing its meaning)for the West and the U.S. to presume to know best how peoples of nonwestern traditions and cultures should order their lives, economies and governments.

That system of government that has the unforced allegiance of most of the governed, is probably best. It may be called democracy, or benevolent dictatorship, or some form of authoritarianism...the crucial point is the allegiance of most of those under its domain.

Socalled "democracy" in Iraq is not getting positive reviews by the man on the street in Baghdad....many perceive the U.S. supported government in Iraq as an incompetent and ineffectual authority incapable of asserting control and quelling the horrific violence.

In that regard, the idea of "democracy" is not playing well.

Unca Alby
Sulla, dictator of Rome and perennial rival of Marius gave up his dictatorial power and retired to private life.

However, he is the ONLY example I can find. So your rule is still almost entirely true.

And to be fair
After Sulla, the Republic did not survive much longer. A protege of Marius, by the name of Caesar formed the triumvirate with Pomey and Crassus and corrupted the political system to establish the three of them as the preeminent power brokers of Rome. Shortly afterwards, Crassus died and Pompey and Caesar split the government between them, drawing support along traditional Optimates/Populares lines, a civil war broke out, the Republic died and the Empire was born.

Typo
Pompey (Gn Pompeius Magnus), no Pomey. My "P" key appears to be behaving badly.

Tribalism
Tired of hearing how all the problems of the middle east and Africa are because evil westerners forced together incompatible tribes.

if you checked the tribal borders of Europe, almost no current European nation matches the borders of tribes. the current borders are the accidents of warfare, inheritance and dynastic marriages and in no way correspond to old tribal borders.

So, why is Europe (outside of some Balkan nations) largely free of genocidal tribal strife that afflicts so much of the world? Because Euope outgrew tribalism.

Yes, in some cases they replaced tribalism with equally wrong-headed nationalism or racism, but still, they got out of the really petty, small scale, genocidal warfare of tribalism.

Africa and the Middle East tribalism is not a problem because of evil europeans. It is a problem because Africans and Middle Easterners (not all, but enough) have not outgrown their tribal beliefs.

Do not blame Europe for this.

Unca Alby
Re your comment on splitting on tribal lines. There are two other problems.

Look at the former Yugoslavia:

1. No matter where you split, everywhere is claimed as "historic" or "sacred" by at LEAST two tribes. No matter where you draw the lines, the tribes are going to beat on each other over a few square feet of earth.

2. No matter how you draw the tribal lines, there is going to be some subtribe which is unhappy with being lumpe din with the rest. Macedonian Albanians are unhappy in Macedonian. Ethnic Greeks don't want to be in Macedonia. My village doesn't want to share a country with your village. Basically if you start splitting on tribal lines, you end up having to split each household into an autronomous state or else you will include two groups who don't want to be together.

Somehow these tribal conflicts need to be eliminated. Either they need to get over these ancient pointless squabbles, or they need to get beaten up by a strong man (eg. Tito in the Balkans, Shaka in Africa) who will kill anyone who dares to bring up old tribal conflicts. Obviously, the first choice is best for all concerned.

I don't think changing borders and trying to appease these primitive tribal conflicts is a good solution. By basing borders on ancient tribal strife you simply perpetuate those old conflicts and keep them going forever.

Unca Alby
You're right. But, you and I both know that the real definition of a Republic is quite different than a Democracy. It's scary to me to see so many Americans falling for this idea that mob rule is the way to go. I fear it will be the end of us, because as our founders warned, democracies never last.

I am quite sure there are other good papers on the differences between the two. The two best I have ever seen are the one I posted up above by Ron Paul and another one that Robert Welch, the founder of the JBS, wrote a long time ago.

Rebublics and Democracies
http://heartoftn.net/users/gary27/Welch.htm

If we as Americans do not understand the difference, how will we ever keep it, as Benjamin Franklin remarked to a woman who asked what kind of government they had given us...

"A Republic, if you can keep it"


Republic vs. Democracy
It may have already been said, and I missed it, but the difference between a pure democracy and a Republican form of government with democratically elected officials is the absolute rule of law, which in this country is contained in the Bill of Rights. In other words, individual rights under the law always take precedence over the whims of the "majority." Under this system one does not have to wait on the next election cycle to get justice.

As one writer well opined, there is no basis for this kind of system in third world countries like Iraq (and Nigeria), because these countries are not established in the Anglo-Protestant system of values upon which the American system of government was founded. Attempting to democratize these cultures only creates chaos, which we now see happening in Iraq, Nigeria, et. al.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.