The Bush administration has put expansion of democracy at the center of its foreign policy. This is a far nobler calling than simply expanding US hegemony. The question is, does Bush really mean it, and does he genuinely understand what democracy means?
The Bush administration praised Saudi Arabia's municipal elections, but what about the rights of women -- including their voting rights? It welcomed the toppling of Venezuela's democratically elected leader, but it continues to support Pakistan's military dictator. It criticizes Russian President Vladimir Putin, but only after he goes against business interests. And it may raise concerns about media concentration in Russia, but remains silent about media concentration in Italy.
There is a taint of hypocrisy in a more fundamental sense. The Bush administration is right to emphasize the importance of elections, without which democracy is inconceivable. But democracy entails more than periodic elections, and the legitimacy of elections depends on the public's confidence in the electoral process itself. In this respect, the last two US presidential elections have hardly been models for the world.
Former US president Jimmy Carter, whose Atlanta center monitors elections around the globe, has raised questions about whether the US' recent election lives up to the standards the US should uphold. Where former US president Bill Clinton sought to ensure that all Americans who are entitled to vote are registered to vote, the Republicans have tried to reverse these advances, putting obstacles in the way both of registration and voting. Modern technology makes it easy to have a paper trail for voting machines, at little cost; yet several states chose not to provide this minimal safeguard.
Beyond elections, citizens can provide an effective check on government only if they are well informed. That is why right-to-know laws are so important.
Of course, politicians prefer to work in secrecy, without oversight. No one can imagine hiring a worker, but allowing him not to inform his employer about what he is doing on the job. Politicians work for the citizenry, which has the right to know what their employees are doing.
Citizens have the right to know how their money is being spent and who is being consulted to form policy. They have the right to know whether Enron and the oil companies are shaping energy policy. They have the right to know why the US, and the world, was misled by false claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
My research has focused on the consequences of asymmetries in information for the functioning of the economy. But a lack of accurate information has equally, if not more, severe consequences for political processes.
The decision to go to war in Iraq is the most dramatic example of this, but there have been many others in the US under Bush. Providing drug benefits under Medicare -- the US' healthcare program for the aged -- may have been the right decision. But restricting the government's ability to bargain with the drug companies was a pure give-away, and nothing justifies providing grossly distorted information about the costs -- now estimated to be in excess of US$1.1 trillion over the next decade. This is three times the amount originally projected by the Bush administration.
Today, the Bush administration is engaged in a disinformation campaign about an impending social-security crisis. While something should be done, the magnitude of the problem hardly foreshadows a crisis. On the contrary, the system could almost surely be put on a solid footing for the next 75 years with a fraction of what was spent on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
Good information requires not just the right to know, but also the right to tell -- a diversified media. There are, as we noted, justified complaints about the lack of diversity in television broadcasting in Russia, yet Bush has not opposed efforts by the Federal Communications Commission to weaken laws on media concentration.
Democracy also requires recognizing the rights of individuals. Undermining any individual's rights jeopardizes everyone's rights. Yet under Bush, the US has undermined basic civil rights, such as habeas corpus, which guarantees individuals recourse to judicial review when the state detains them. The extended detention of dozens of individuals in Guantanamo -- without charge and without trial -- is a basic abrogation of this right.
Fortunately, even if Bush does not understand such basic principles, the courts do, and they are now, albeit belatedly, forcing his administration to abide by them.
Finally, of what value is the right to vote without recognition of the right to a certain minimal standard of living, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
In countries where much of the population lives below subsistence level, buying votes is all too easy.
But the only economic rights the Bush administration recognizes are intellectual property rights, putting the interests of drug companies ahead of those with life-threatening diseases, and the free mobility of capital, which has had such devastating effects on many countries.
America's democracy remains the envy of much of the world, and it is good that the Bush administration now champions the expansion of democracy forcefully.
But the administration would be far more credible, and have far more success, if it took a closer look at home, if it examined its own practices more honestly, and if it engaged in a broader discussion of what democracy really means.
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is professor of economics at Columbia University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
There are moments in history when America has turned its back on its principles and withdrawn from past commitments in service of higher goals. For example, US-Soviet Cold War competition compelled America to make a range of deals with unsavory and undemocratic figures across Latin America and Africa in service of geostrategic aims. The United States overlooked mass atrocities against the Bengali population in modern-day Bangladesh in the early 1970s in service of its tilt toward Pakistan, a relationship the Nixon administration deemed critical to its larger aims in developing relations with China. Then, of course, America switched diplomatic recognition
The international women’s soccer match between Taiwan and New Zealand at the Kaohsiung Nanzih Football Stadium, scheduled for Tuesday last week, was canceled at the last minute amid safety concerns over poor field conditions raised by the visiting team. The Football Ferns, as New Zealand’s women’s soccer team are known, had arrived in Taiwan one week earlier to prepare and soon raised their concerns. Efforts were made to improve the field, but the replacement patches of grass could not grow fast enough. The Football Ferns canceled the closed-door training match and then days later, the main event against Team Taiwan. The safety
The National Immigration Agency on Tuesday said it had notified some naturalized citizens from China that they still had to renounce their People’s Republic of China (PRC) citizenship. They must provide proof that they have canceled their household registration in China within three months of the receipt of the notice. If they do not, the agency said it would cancel their household registration in Taiwan. Chinese are required to give up their PRC citizenship and household registration to become Republic of China (ROC) nationals, Mainland Affairs Council Minister Chiu Chui-cheng (邱垂正) said. He was referring to Article 9-1 of the Act
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
RSS