Pakistan (and Iraq et al): "Phased (in) Democracy" vs. "Instant (Jammed) Democracy"

As a start, perhaps the U.S. should try something radically different, and quickly. That is changing its democracy implementation approach. Rather than dictate its own agenda as to what is best for these countries, the U.S. instead should (really) seek out and ask the Pakistani/Iraqi’s theirs. With that (courtesy) understanding, then follow-up by asking them what democracy compromises "they" can suggest (and live with), and then mutually assist and build out a negotiation and plan from there to address the short, intermediate and longer term democracy implementation direction and plan.

It is reasonable to assume that Pakistan and Iraq can and will "gradually" over time move toward a more traditional form of democracy with "responsible and patient" long term assistance from the U.S. The key point being prudently realizing that it will take a long time, and certainly won't happen overnight as some or rather the majority in Washington wrongly now believe "Instant Democracy" to be possible. Instead, Democracy must be continually parceled, fed, nurtured and carefully "brewed" into Pakistan, Iraq and other newbie and/or wannabe Democratic countries over time and in specific steps.

Call the approach "Phased (in) Democracy", which takes on a "quasi democracy" look as it develops and grows.

"Phased Democracy", rather than threats and/or unilateral demands, should be the core underpinning model of U.S. discussions with these countries. Rather than berate them and/or forcing "Instant Democracy" ultimatums upon them, begin the discussions (negotiation) with asking their suggestions for (democracy implementation steps) compromise and then weaving in those of the U.S., in the form of a “phased in” timetable with specific key democracy implementation/reform milestones.

Expert, yet "clever" kid gloves, rather than employing the current "Stick or Envoy" (aka Spanking or Reprimanding) approach is clearly in order. In doing so, that new approach might very well break the stalemates and barriers to implementation and instead open the door to real partnership in achieving a democracy implementation solution, on both the U.S. and Pakistani/Iraqi desired terms. Effectively doing something other than what these countries currently perceive as being both chastised and dictated a no-win proposition.

In fact, securing a mutually acceptable "compromise" result which all parties can live with. 

In conclusion, given the arguments above, the Analyst recommends the U.S./WEAST playing less hardball and more softball – kinder and gentler. Accepting the rational fact that "Instant Democracy" is not achievable in Pakistan and Iraq et al, leaves but two choices related to direct U.S. involvement in democracy implementation solution development, one for the better and one for the worse. They are "to compromise or not to compromise". Translation - "Phased Democracy (compromise) or Dictatorship (no compromise)".

By jamming "Instant Democracy" on these countries, the U.S. is shooting itself in the foot and getting the opposite effect intended. Rather than help move Pakistan back in a democratic direction, this approach instead puts Pakistan on a collision course with official "Dictatorship". Dictatorship could very well knock the U.S. out of Pakistan, severely jeopardizing its own national security, with China/Russia immediately filling the Pakistan power void left by the U.S.

It's time to therefore take a step back and instead pursue the near term "compromise" between the two extremes of "Instant Democracy" and "Dictatorship". That compromise is "Phased (in) Democracy", leading to longer term "True Democracy".

And with the acceptance and theme of "country differences", then "True" may very well be a relative term too as in "True" Democracy in Pakistan may be (quite) different than "True" Democracy in the U.S.; meaning phased-in may not ultimately yield complete and/or perfect democracy, that is by U.S. standards anyway.

So finally, in terms of long term U.S. national security, isn't "Phased Democracy" ("Quasi-Democracy" to start) in Pakistan, Iraq and elsewhere, better than no Democracy at all, Compromise better than Dictatorship, and the U.S./WEAST strategically positioned (and welcomed) in Pakistan and Iraq better than being displaced by (Commulism modeled) China/Russia.

The time has come to recognize there is huge risk in forcing Instant Democracy, as doing so can quickly turn short term democracy progress into longer term historical dictatorship. Russia being a good example and its circuitous if not whipsaw evolution from 1991 Soviet Union (collapse)to 1991 (instant) Russia to 2008 Soviet Union (II?); instant democracy upon the precipitous collapse of Communism, then being to much to fast (i.e. the fire hose analogy), allowing rebuild back to de-facto dictatorship in 2008.

Instead, step back and do something different; that which benefits both the Pakistani/Iraqi peoples and U.S. national security. Treat democracy as a seed to be planted, with the sensitivity and time it needs to take root, grow and develop. Don’t just dig a 30 foot hole and transplant (dump) in a 200 year old, 200 foot “Democracy Red Wood”. It will only whither and die.

When it comes to “Selling Democracy”, like selling anything else, the fundamental underpinning in any successful sale is “the customer is always right”. The right solution to selling here is "Compromise" (Phased (in) Democracy); compromising between what the West wants and what the Pakistanis and /Iraqis can each reasonably absorb.

And isn’t (an environment of sustainable) “Compromise” a key underpinning of (any) True Democracy?

...all while being fair to “both” buyer and seller too?

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).