Foreign Policy In Focus

Nuclear weapons and voter ignorance are a lethal mix.

Most of us keep our distance from the subject of nuclear weapons. Nor is it hard to understand why. Many think that since the end of the Cold War, nuclear war has become a minor threat. Especially when compared to an economy that seems like it's always on the brink of imploding just as the United States and Russia seemed always on the brink of exploding into nuclear war. Nor, understandably, are most who are aware that nuclear war remains a threat capable of facing what may well be a sword of Damocles hanging over their very existence, as well as their families'.

Another, less apparent, reason why most of us avert our attention from the prospect of war waged with nuclear weapons is that we believe that national-security policy, as well as warfighting strategy, not to mention the daunting technology of nuclear weapons, are above our pay grade. After all, deterrence seems to be working, doesn't it? Perhaps, but, when it comes to weapons with the destructive power of nuclear weapons, keeping the world waiting with bated breath to make sure that war doesn't break out is not a long-term solution.

In an oped at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists titled Democracy and the bomb, Kennette Benedict, its executive editor, points to the lack of attention paid to nuclear weapons and disarmament in the recent election as evidence that most of us feel overwhelmed by the whole subject. "Too often," writes Ms. Benedict

… many of us lucky enough to live in democracies view elections as the only responsibility we have as citizens and leave the policy discussions to the elected and to the experts. … Political leaders and policy experts don't always encourage a lot of participation, either; perhaps they believe that citizens are badly informed about issues and that their participation will result in poor decisions.

But

Allowing policy leaders and officials to make decisions for us, however, is at odds with the principle of equality, as Robert Dahl notes in his often overlooked essay "Controlling Nuclear Weapons: Democracy versus Guardianship." …  The principle of guardianship … holds that only a small minority of citizens is sufficiently qualified and therefore capable of making binding decisions for the nation. As Dahl observes, the political system of a modern democratic country is usually a combination of democracy and meritocracy, but, when it comes to nuclear weapons, "We have in fact turned over to a small group of people decisions of incalculable importance to ourselves and mankind, and it is very far from clear how, if at all, we could recapture a control that in fact we have never had." We are living in a democracy based on guardianship, not equality, when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Since it combines two of our favorite subjects -- nuclear weapons and voter ignorance and/or apathy -- we were only too happy to go straight to the horse's mouth and read Controlling Nuclear Weapons (Syracuse University Press, 1985), which, though Benedict refers to it as an essay, was published as a short book. Dahl, who taught at Yale University and was known as the "dean" of American political scientists, writes that the idea that only a minority of persons are competent to rule, per Plato's The Republic, has enjoyed new life (at least as of the eighties) in democratic countries because

… the complexity of public issues challenges the assumption that ordinary people are competent to make decisions about these matters. in order to make wise decisions, decision makers need specialized knowledge that most citizens do not possess.

Furthermore

One might respond by saying that even in a democracy, after all, complex decisions like these can be delegated to experts. But suppose that most of us do not even possess enough knowledge to understand the terms on which we can safely delegate authority over these decisions to those more expert than we? Then we have not simply delegated authority. Instead, we have alienated [or given away -- RW] control over our lives to others: that is, for practical purposes we simply lose control over crucial decisions, and lose control over our lives. The more we alienate authority … the more we lose our freedom, and the more hollow the democratic process becomes. Or to put it another way, the more that we alienate authority the more the external forms of democracy clothe a de facto regime of guardianship.

Thus, the subject of nuclear weapons not only overwhelms us, but may strain democracy itself to the breaking point. As Dahl asks:

Are the institutions of contemporary democracy adequate to cope satisfactorily with the enormous complexity of public matters?

The reservation we have with Dahl's otherwise valuable book is that he seems to think that nuclear weapons are a problem to which society needs to adjust. Dahl provides ideas for solutions for citizen participation in nuclear-weapons decisions, many of them more or less implemented in the meantime via information technology. But they seem like so much tweaking.

The case can be made that nuclear weapons are the ultimate test of democracy. But the stakes are too high if we lose. In fact, the existence of nuclear weapons needs to adjust to the needs of society by eliminating them.

We find ourselves in reluctant accord with libertarians, though while many of them believe that government is too large and complex for the average voter (as best explained by Ilya Somin for the Cato Institute in 2004) to understand, we'll just stick with "too complex." Nuclear weapons, with the existential questions they force us to face and their daunting strategy and technology, exponentially compound the problem. They discourage participation in democracy, at exactly the point democracy is most needed. As Benedict writes:

Once citizens no longer feel qualified to participate in decisions about their very survival, the connection between the governing and the governed is severed. It is hard to see where the democracy is in this.

As the Libyan people celebrate freedom from the rule of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, many are wondering what will come next for the North African nation. In an interview at 12:30 PM EDT, Emira Woods, Co-Director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies, stresses the need for the Libyan people to seize the opportunity to create a political and economic Libya that works for the benefit of all the people of Libya.

“After 42 years of Muammar el-Qaddafi, it is now long overdue for the Libyan people to determine their own destiny,” says Woods. “The question is, can this be a real revolution, where the interests of all the people are heard, are reflected, where the political infrastructure that is put into place is representative of all?”

Interviewer: What does it mean for the Libyan people that the end of Qaddafi’s rule seems to be at an end?

Emira Woods: The most critical issue now is for Libyans to be able to control their own destiny. After 42 years of Muammar el-Qaddafi, it is now long overdue for the Libyan people to determine their own destiny. Whether it’s the oil sector or other elements of their economy, or it’s their political decision-making, it is now time for the Libyan people to take control of their own destiny and not for short-term interests of the United States or other NATO countries to determine key next steps in Libya’s future.

Interviewer: Do you think there is a chance that the Transitional National Council might hand over any part of Libya’s sovereignty to outside interests?

EW: Well I think the Transitional National Council is a big unknown. There are varied interests in the council, including interests that were allied with the CIA and other western agencies and other western forces, including interests that were quite frankly at odds with each other. You know, the internal fighting and bickering that led to even the recent assassination of their general from within I think shows quite a splintering of the rebel factions.

EW: The key issue now is, can they come together to pull together a political entity that has legitimacy for all Libyans, that is able to put the interests of all of the country first, and not outside interests or once again reinforcing the interests of the elite. So what we have is a situation where the elite and a very narrow segment of the population benefitted from the enormous wealth of Libya. And the question is, is there an attempt now to transfer from the elites that sided with Qaddafi to elites that are opposed to Qaddafi but still elites dominating the decision-making and the economic benefits and the economic resources of the country?

EW: So the question is, can this be a real revolution, where the interests of all the people are heard, are reflected, where the political infrastructure that is put into place is representative of all — both east and west factions and ethnic groups within the country, whether all Libyans regardless of their racial complexion, regardless of their political affiliations, will have an opportunity to have representation in decision-making for their future? I think that’s the key here. Can there be a legitimate political authority put forward, given how the ouster of Qaddafi has taken place.

Interviewer: Regarding that legitimate political authority, a lot of people have been saying that that includes “democracy.” Of course that is what our President Obama says should be the next step for Libya and what might you say that that means for Libyans?

EW: Democracy is rule of the people, for the people, by the people. In case of Libya now it means not having the oil companies determine what comes next because of tremendous interests in Libya’s oil for the global market. Democracy means having now a transitional government that looks to constitutional reform in a way that is representative of the needs and the interests of all of the country, that unites all of the country, that does a large measure of the national healing needed after this type of political as well as military crisis.

Interviewer: Will you be celebrating if the opposition fighters actually do manage to overthrow the last remaining part of Tripoli?

EW: I think “celebration” is a tough word. I think with the level of deaths and violence and civilians that have been killed now in this military operation, both from NATO and from the rebel forces and from Qaddafi’s forces, I think “celebration” is a tough word. But I think what is needed is a sense that Libya can actually turn a page, turn a page from dictatorship towards democracy, towards an environment where all Libyans are able to have a role in their future, determining their destiny, all Libyans have a role in determining the future of their economy so that it works in the interests of all of the people. I think that there is an incredible potential now for Libyans to be able to link hands in solidarity and look toward a future together in the region. Again, Libya is well situated between Tunisia and Egypt. It is a neighborhood that has dramatically transformed in the past eight months. And I think a key issue is, can that region, can North Africa, can the uprisings that it has encouraged throughout the world, those efforts at people power, can they be strengthened in ways that shape the months, years, and decades to come — not only for that region, but for the entire world.

Emira Woods is the co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies.

On March 1, Doug Saunders of Toronto's Globe and Mail reported from Zarzis, Tunisia:

The entire student population, plus one teacher, have defied their principal's orders and skipped school to pack the streets in a jubilant and defiant mood. They are demanding a quick move to democracy -- not just in the capital of Tunis, but also here in Zarzis, where it is the youth who have forced out the regime-appointed mayor and set up a committee that now controls the town.

Walid Fellah, 27, one of the organizers of the local-government committee. . . . set up Zarzis TV, a Facebook page upon which he posted videos of local protests and government reprisals. It became an instant hit and fanned the local revolution. . . . The comment threads on Zarzis TV became a rallying point for students, who would spend hours debating the best structure for municipal government and the pathway to elections.

"These students were never taught anything about democracy . . . but they're learning it all by experience," said Mourad Dani, 32, the lone high-school teacher willing to join the school's "revolution." (He risks suspension from his job, and the students risk losing their diplomas, for being involved.)

In one respect, though, they resemble American students. Mr. Dani added:

"Before, government was the most boring subject, nobody thought about it."

With one important difference.

"Now it's all they can talk about."

No matter to what extent the civic foundation of the United States disintegrated, it's difficult to imagine American teenagers debating the structure of municipal government. Meanwhile, the Obama administration was a couple of beats slow in voicing its support for the opposition in Tunisia and Egypt. As for American adult citizens, one can't help suspect that were the Constitution drawn up and submitted for ratification today, it would be considered much too radical for passage in the House and Senate.

Recent events in Wisconsin and elsewhere caution one against caving in to complete cynicism. Still, it's entirely likely that most Americans are more comfortable with a surveillance (if not all-out police) state than one in which civil liberties rang throughout the land. If America is China's future, China may be America's future.

We'd better be careful: we're about to be out-democracied by newly engaged citizens around in the world.

Hosni Mubarak is out and the military is in charge of Egypt. Is this a soft coup d’état or a true transition to democracy stewarded by the military? On the surface, the pro-democracy movement appears to have succeeded without violence. Could the infant revolution succeed in bringing democracy and free and fair elections? This is an important question since the military is still in charge and the revolution is in its infancy.

The Egyptian regime has been kept in power for decades with an estimated one million Egyptians working for security services in the military as well as in the police. The security services have blood on their hands. With orders from the regime, these forces arbitrarily arrested, kidnapped, tortured, raped, and murdered its citizens who would dare to oppose the 30-year regime. In contrast, the Egyptian military has little or no blood on their hands directly, but they have used their influence and might to keep the regime in power. The role of the military became very clear in the removal of Mubarak (February 11) and anointing the military in charge.

The regime, in addition to their massive abuse of the people, has pillaged the country’s wealth for their use. They have robbed billions of dollars from the treasury and used their power to grab corporate dollars in ill-gotten deals. In the same period, the people have suffered extreme poverty and diseases. Thirty million Egyptians live on less than two dollars a day. According to a UN–HABITAT 2010-2011 report, out of the population of eighty-five million, fifteen million Egyptians live in slums.

Since the beginning of the Egyptians’ pro-democracy revolution on January 25, the demonstrators sacrificed over three hundred deaths and several thousand wounded. The demonstrators, amazingly, continued to call for peaceful demonstrations all across Egypt. What is next for the pro-democracy movement if the military reign of power subverts the revolution?

Before answering the question, first and foremost, the pro-democracy movement must choose their leaders along with a clear and unambiguous platform for democracy, party participation, and fair and just elections. The platform should declare that no country should interfere in the progress of their revolution. This will be difficult in an arena that has depended on Egypt for its cold peace with Israel. Immediately after the announcement of Mubarak’s departure, Israeli media reported that Israeli analysts were happy to have Egypt’s military in charge. They added that the 1.5 billion US dollars annually given to Egypt is the leverage to keep Egypt in check for the peace treaty with Israel. Let us hope that a sovereign democratic state of Egypt is the best guarantor of peace.

Ultimately, the next steps for the pro-democracy movement will be to lay the moral framework for their movement. The world was rocked by watching this peaceful revolution in real time. To remain faithful to the principles of democracy, the people must remain firm in their commitment to peaceful means, valuing each individual human life, and treating all of Egypt’s citizens as having equal worth. The pro-democracy movement must remain vigilant, increasing pressure peacefully while demanding the dismantling the organs of oppression.

The events in Egypt are still fluid. We all hope this peaceful revolution will be able to become rooted in an Egyptian republic. If democracy holds in Egypt, peace activists across the globe will be ecstatic that two peaceful revolutions – in Tunisia and Egypt- have come to pass. The world waits as the cultural heart of the Arab world begins its march to democracy.

At the Christian Science Monitor, Graham Fuller gets off a good "gotcha."

. . . we have been through this debate endlessly since 9/11. Why is there so much anti-American sentiment? No, it's not because "they hate our values."

Wait for it (as they say) . . .

It’s our lack of values in foreign policy they don't like.

Good one, Graham. Expanding on that, he writes that it's "our hypocritical lack of commitment to democracy, except when it meets our immediate needs."

The entire essay, US can blame itself for anger in the Middle East, and start making peace, is as eloquent as anything you'll read on the subject by an American. As he brings the piece to a close, Fuller writes, "We favor democracy -- but only when it produces the leaders and policies that suit our interests, not theirs." Okay, we know that, but then he waxes epigrammatic again:

Democratization is always a punishment we deliver upon enemies, never a gift bestowed upon friends.

In fact, we're as biased in our choice of states to which we grant democracy as we are with nuclear weapons.