Book Review - The Case for Democracy - Natan Sharansky
It’s not often that the president of the United States of America engages in book promotions. So when in the beginning of this year President Bush described Natan Sharansky’s The Case for Democracy as a must read, I felt it was my civic duty (as a strong supporter of America’s new neo conservative foreign policy) to oblige. I have just finished reading this poignant treatise on the power of democracy and freedom to overcome tyranny and terror in the Middle East and would like to share a few thoughts.
Natan Sharansky needs no introduction as a human rights campaigner. Unlike most of today’s armchair human rights activists (among them Amnesty International and the United Nation), he spent 9 years in prison for his public opposition to the totalitarianism of the Soviet Empire. This experience of being a dissident in one of the world’s least democratic states gives Sharansky incredible insight into the workings of despotic regimes and tangible means to defeat them.
Sharansky argues that the Realist foreign policy school of thought (so prevalent in the American state department prior to 9/11) is in fact one of the greatest dangers facing international peace and security. Western governments in recent years with the spate of bombings in New York, London and Madrid have learnt that propping up dictators does not promote international stability but actually fuels terrorism. It is interesting to note that the majority of the high-jackers on 9/11 came from Middle Eastern countries with pro America public polices. Sharansky explains that dictators in order to stay in power need to play double speak. They need Western technological and financial support while at the same time need an external enemy to justify their oppression at home. Tragically for the last half century Western governments have been funding the anti-western hate-fest that is the Arab street.
Sharansky argues that Israel has been no exception to this phenomenon. During the 9 years he served as a cabinet minister in successive Israel governments, his pleas to make peace with the Palestinian conditional on democratic reform fell on deaf ears. The Oslo Accords embodied the realist approach to peace and security. It was encapsulated by Prime Minister Rabin’s remark that Arafat would be able to fight terror more effectively than Israel because he did not have to be bothered with the shackles of a Supreme Court and human rights activists. What the Israeli ‘peace’ camp failed to realise is that strengthening Arafat by providing him with guns and money allowed him to create a terror state on the West bank and in Gaza. He perhaps personified the double speak of a dictator by talking about peace in English for his western donors, while spewing the most vile anti-Semitic hated in Arabic to justify his repressive policies towards his own people.
Democracy and freedom argues Sharansky are the cure to this terrorist scourge. In the entire history of the world a free society has never waged war again another free society. In fact it is remarkable to think that Fascist Japan and Germany who fought a world war against the West are today democratic and some of our staunchest allies. Even Stalin’s evil empire, is today in the form of democratic Russia, a close friend. And so too a free Middle East could one day be a partner in promoting global peace and prosperity.
Although I fully endorse Sharansky’s belief in the power of democracy and freedom, I regret that he did not provide a ‘road map’ for Middle Eastern transformation. He does mention how Western public and financial support for the dissidents in the Soviet Union finally lead to its implosion and encourages this policy for the Middle East. But he provides no information about who these Arab dissidents are, what progress they have made, or how we can support them. In fact one of the biggest problems in post war Iraq is the lack of a broad based Iraqi liberation movement that could take power. Without home grown democratic Arab political parties, freedom in the Middle East will only survive under the auspices of neo-Western imperialism.
So while rightfully castigating the Realist foreign policies of Western states, Sharansky unfortunately fails to provide a practical alternative. If we want the Bush foreign policy revolution to prevail, neo-cons will need influential Arab democrats. Rather than spending our time decrying all the anti-Western hate that flows out the Middle East, we should be searching frantically for the much fainter voices of Sharansky-like Arab dissidents.
I have the case for democracy but havent read it yet.
I totally recommend Sharansky's first book "fear no evil". Sharansky is a sheer genius and his stories about how he beat the KGB at the mind games are rivetting.
My favourite anecdote was how he proved that even behind the cold prison walls he was more free than the KGB agents.
He told them a joke about how frantic the Russians became when the US sent a man to the moon - so much so that they quickly released their plans to get a man to the sun. A young Russian scientist questioned the Russian Sun team "but wont it be too hot". Nonsense the Russian team responded...we are prepared for that...do you think we are stupid! We will send the man to the sun at night!
Sharansky tells how the KGB wanted to laugh at his jokes but that they couldnt. He would then mock them, explaining that with their so called freedom they cant even laugh at an amusing joke.
Posted by: Steve | October 10, 2005 at 21:24
Nice to see that there's someone else helping now.
Shalom Mike.
Posted by: Anti-UN | October 10, 2005 at 22:36
Hey Mike. Nice to meet you.
Posted by: Laurence Caromba | October 10, 2005 at 23:31
Mike, good debut post on IAS blog! Looking forward more blogging from you.
I was planning to get Natan's book eventually, also I think I'll add "Fear No Evil" to my shopping cart as well.
Posted by: Vaz Lube | October 11, 2005 at 11:42
Sharansky is an idealist. His terms for negotiations are terms that can never be met.
Thats my view.
Posted by: Reader | October 11, 2005 at 12:49
Sharasky may be an idealist but so were many of the great political thinker of the last centuary. People accused Hertzl of being an idealist. Look what he achieved.
Posted by: Mike | October 12, 2005 at 10:53
Nicely said.
Posted by: Chi | April 11, 2006 at 11:10