In League with Democracy
This article is a response to an article in the last edition of The Sydney Globalist, entitled ‘Democracy: A Consensus?’. To view past editions of the magazine, click on ‘Past Editions’ in the menu above.
In ‘Antiquated Ideologies and the Next Ten Words’, Edward Cohen and David Howell provide a compelling critique of Robert Kagan’s proposal for a ‘league of democracies’. Kagan’s suggestion – that liberal democratic states should band together to contain rising autocratic regimes – is misguided. To arrange global security alliances along these lines risks igniting an ideological battle reminiscent of the Cold War.
But is the idea of a ‘league of democracies’ entirely without merit? Such a league might be useful; not as a security arrangement, but as an association confined to the very subject matter on which its membership would be conditioned: democratic governance. The league could be a watchdog for democracy, serving as a leaders’ forum for discussing issues of representative government and the rule of law. It could cut across traditional north-south, east-west divides, bringing together democracies from Canada to Cape Verde.
Of course, the proposal is not without risk. The league might descend into shameless self-congratulation. Its commentary could be heavily politicised. Many developing states might be reluctant to join at all, preferring to maintain the regional alliances that currently see robust democracies such as Senegal siding with the likes of Zimbabwe. Finally, as Cohen and Howell point out, determining which states qualify as ‘democracies’ would be no simple task.
Nonetheless, the concept of a league of democracies is not invalid in itself. And like the voter who dutifully goes to the polls knowing that her vote will be statistically insignificant, this writer cannot help but have a little faith in the power of democratic ideals.
