Thomas Friedman on Democracy and diversity

I was going to post on the situation in Pakistan, but I spent most of my time trying to get the new background graphic just right. Fortunately, Thomas Friedman has done most of my work for me. Friedman discusses the connection between social diversity and successful democracy. I provide the key quote here:

A senior French official suggested to me that maybe we in the West, rather than trying to promote democracy in the Middle East — a notion tainted by its association with the very Western powers that once colonized the region — should be focusing on promoting diversity, which has historical roots in the area.

It’s a valid point. The very essence of democracy is peaceful rotations of power, no matter whose party or tribe is in or out. But that ethic does not apply in most of the Arab-Muslim world today, where the political ethos remains “Rule or Die.” Either my group is in power or I’m dead, in prison, in exile or lying very low. But democracy is not about majority rule; it is about minority rights. If there is no culture of not simply tolerating minorities, but actually treating them with equal rights, real democracy can’t take root.

But respect for diversity is something that has to emerge from within a culture.

Friedman has a point here. The norms that underpin democracy are critical to it's successful function. The institutions we observe in a democracy are the physical manifestations of the underlying norms, and at the same time they reinforce the norms by structuring society in ways that encourage the observation of norms. The relationship between actors (individuals in society who chose to observe democratic norms) and structure (democratic institutions that inculcate and reward the observance of said norms) is what Anthony Giddens called structuration. It forms the basis of most constructivist approaches in the study of international relations. But I digress. Back to Friedman's point. What he neglects is that it is not diversity per say that inspires the requisite democratic norms. There are plenty of countries that have very limited diversity that are successful democracies (Japan, South Korea) and others that have loads of diversity but democracy is tough to come by (Russia comes to mind). What is critical is the development and acceptance, society-wide, of the norms of non-violent conflict resolution, minority rights (this might be expanded to include a basic set of human rights), transparency, and rule of law and the integration of these norms into the political structures of the state. Attempting to establish the political structures without the norms is bound to fail. the foundation is simply not there. Establishing the norms without the institutions is more likely to be successful (e.g. Gandhi), but without the establishment of supportive institutions, the norms will dies out, starved of structural support. What Friedman perhaps gets at is that pluralism of thought is required. His examples certainly seem to indicate that is his bigger point:

"The Muslim Emperor Akbar, who ruled India in the 16th century at the pinnacle of the Mughal Empire, had Christians, Hindus, Jain and Zoroastrians in his court. Many of his senior officials were Hindus. On his deathbed, Jesuit priests tried to convert him, but he refused. Here was a man who knew who he was, yet he had respect for all religions. Nehru, a Hindu and India’s first prime minister, was a great admirer of Akbar."

Akbar wasn’t just tolerant. He was embracing of other faiths and ideas, which is why his empire was probably the most powerful in Indian history. Pakistan, which has as much human talent as India, could use an Akbar. Ditto the Arab world.

The key here is intellectual diversity. The seems to be a need for an broader identity that sits over more parochial identities. A national identity that corresponds to the state would fit the bill. That national identity would facilitate the incorporation of a democratic identity. Not only does this allow individuals to see others in society as fellow democrats, abiding by the same rules, and fundamentally similar to the self, it may very well facilitate the democratic peace, but that is a topic for another day...