I finished the Natan Sharansky book on why we need to spread democracy to reduce terror , tyranny and warfare. There are several emotional parts in this political book where you may get tears in your eyes.
I recommend the book unequivocally. It is a major contribution to one of the main debates of our time: democracy. We don’t know what democracy is, why democracies don’t war on each other nor how to create democracy.
Sharansky makes excellent points on each of these elements and in two out of three cases he makes a convincing argument.
We get a step further in defining democracy with Sharansky’s criteria. Elections are not a measure. The measure of democracy is the existence of dissidents, able to express their opinions in public without threat or fear, because that freedom for dissidents requires an independent rule of law and a free media. He adds the conditions of freedom to practice all religions and learn ethnic history. (The religious freedom point is relevant to China with Falun Gong and Palestine that has driven out Christians.)
Sharansky makes the further valuable point in regards to creating democracy that the elements of freedom need to be in place before elections can be free. In fact, free elections can only come years after freedom is accepted as the public norm. The cauldron of Iraq is a living test of this thesis where media, dissidents and anti-tyrannical education are in place but public safety is still on the horizon and some argue that it may be concurrent with the electoral processes.
The strength of Sharansky’s argument rests on his reminder that democracy has worked in previously unlikely places such as Germany and Japan; it seems to be working in Russian and East Europe. I add, Taiwan, South Korea and Turkey. He also advocates, based on his Soviet dissident experience, that pressure for nations to create democratic reforms can come from laws such as Jackson-Vanik that require democratic-dissident-protection practices in return for trade benefits.
Sharansky’s clear moral vision makes sense in dealing with Iran and China. It seems less relevant to Latin America (including Cuba where it hasn’t worked). It makes no apparent sense in Arab countries which is why Sharansky is highly respected as a man in Israel but treated as a political failure for his advocacy that Palestinians or other tribal Islamic Arabs are capable of democracy.
Sharansky tries to give a reason to explain the old canard that democracies never war against each other. He fails and we have to await a better explanation. At this point I don’t think history has given us the tools to explain this enigma.
This book will challenge any certainties you have on these issues, it challenged me. Sharansky has changed my mind on China and Iran.
(I have added interesting letter in the comments.)