« Nothing To See Here | Main | There's Only One October » (N)autocracy29 Oct 2007 08:48 pm I've griped about this before, but he keeps doing it, so once again - Robert Kagan's column about "the surprising resilience of autocracy in China, Russia, Venezuela and elsewhere" is at least somewhat undercut by the fact that neither Venezuela nor Russia are really autocracies, as the word is actually defined, and China certainly isn't one. Just saying. Update: As is Daniel Larison. Comments (25)
This is really important work you're doing. Thanks. Now that we know Venezuela is not an "autocracy" I can go to sleep tonight, comfortable that my children will not improperly label the various oppressive governments around the world. 
I hate it when Americans feel like they have the right to get involved in the internal affairs of other countries. However the Chinese, the Venezuelans, the Russians or the Jamaicans run their own show is no business of ours. Liberal democracy isn't the be-all and end-all of things. Christianity was around before liberal democracy and it will be around when liberal democracy is long gone.
Ross, You're absolutely right about the terminology problem. It's a surprisingly common mistake that I know I've made myself. But a more interesting question is, if you just replace "autocratic" and its variants with the proper form of "authoritarian," which is almost certainly an accurate description of all three countries, does Kagan's analysis hold up? I think it might, exactly because these regimes have improved on the old "autocratic" framework. Rule by one person was pretty tough to keep up. But rule by and for a narrow group just large enough to dominate economic and political life is easy enough without elections.
This is really important work you're doing. Thanks. Now that we know Venezuela is not an "autocracy" I can go to sleep tonight, comfortable that my children will not improperly label the various oppressive governments around the world. Man, the wit. Put this in your pipe and smoke it: by almost any criteria, Venezuela has a more robust democratic process than the United States. A far higher percentage of the populations vote. The population as a whole is vastly more politically connected and engaged. The national dialog on political issues encompasses many more people than in the United States. And a member of the working class has a legitimate chance to be elected to the highest seats of government, unlike America, which is ruled at the federal level by powerful, connected plutocrats, almost without exception.
Et me hasten to add that the restrictions of freedom of speech are of course horrendous, and I'm no fan of many aspects of the current government. But context is important, and their are many things to admire in the Venezuelan democracy. Including Venezuela anywhere near the top of the list of most oppressive countries in the world is just wrong.
As Aaron shows us, the adherents of truthiness will always resist those dedicated to telling us the truth! Not that I always agree with Ross, but he's much more for truth than truthiness. And really, that's the important thing.
This is really important work you're doing. Thanks. Now that we know Venezuela is not an "autocracy" I can go to sleep tonight, comfortable that my children will not improperly label the various oppressive governments around the world. Christ, what a moron.
Aaron, don't sleep too soundly because your children are being raised by a moron.
So in your previous bit you linked to, you called China an "undemocratic meritocracy" as a way of saying Kagan is wrong to call China in particular autocratic. Now, as you say, you're no China expert (and neither am I), but how does the Chinese government differ in essential respects from, say, the quite autocratic (indeed, the paradigmatic example of autocratic) government of 19th century Russia? Well, one way might be that the Chinese government is a group authoritarianism as opposed to an authoritarianism run by the Tsar. But I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes, especially since even the Tsar couldn't run the state all on his own and had to satisfy any number of constituencies to keep himself afloat. Maybe there's more openness to the outside world - which would likely be true - but even "autocratic" Russia had its "open" moments (and the quite autocratic Catherine the Great was quite happy to converse with the "enlightened" intellectuals of western Europe). And in any case I'm not sure at all why it is such definition-nitpicking even matters. What hangs, precisely, on whether a government is "autocratic" or just merely "authoritarian"? Its proclivity toward democratization? And as for those (ahem, Freddie) who think that Venezuela represents a "vastly more democratic process" than in the United States, well, I guess it just goes to show Plato's critiques still pretty helpful. Glad Venezuela has all that popular dialog along with lots of restrictions on free speech. A bit incongruous, no?
What hangs, precisely, on whether a government is "autocratic" or just merely "authoritarian"? Its proclivity toward democratization? That isn't the question. The question is, should things be correctly labeled. Autocracy is more or less interchangeable with monarchy,since it means rule by one person. Autocracy obviously encompasses authoritarianism, but not necessarily vice versa. One is a form of government, the other is a style of governing. And as for those (ahem, Freddie) who think that Venezuela represents a "vastly more democratic process" than in the United States, well, I guess it just goes to show Plato's critiques still pretty helpful. Glad Venezuela has all that popular dialog along with lots of restrictions on free speech. A bit incongruous, no? Don't change the subject from the "democratic process" to "free speech." The "process" which elected Hugo Chavez was more democratic than the process by which we elect our presidents. Once in power Chavezcan of course make undemocractic policies; democracies are always capable of effectively voting themselves out of existence (cf. the United States, circa 2004).
And of course, the United States is more properly called a federal republic than a direct democracy.
Well, Kagan's analysis might hold up, but what's the prescription? Does he really think that the U.S. is in position with regards to Russia and China "to demand that they hold free and fair elections"? "Passivity in the face of tyranny will not suffice"? Setting the platitude aspect of this aside, I'd really like Kagan to say more explicitly what it is he's calling for here. It would be one thing if the column was just general bitching about how a growing economy doesn't always lead to political liberty, but quotes like this seem to imply that Kagan wants us to do something about it. It's hard for me to take him seriously when he doesn't say what that is.
Greg, it's simple. These things are said by people like Kagan purely for domestic political reasons. They don't care if China holds free and fair elections. They care if their side wins the next election by appearing to stand up to the bad guys. And as always, they can blame not actually standing up to the bad guys on liberals.
And as for those (ahem, Freddie) who think that Venezuela represents a "vastly more democratic process" than in the United States, well, I guess it just goes to show Plato's critiques still pretty helpful. Glad Venezuela has all that popular dialog along with lots of restrictions on free speech. A bit incongruous, no? No, not incongruous at all, actually. Unfortunate, as I said above. But democracy involves rule of the people, or as is more commonly (but less accurately) conceived, rule of representatives elected by the people. And in that project, the electing of officials that will represent public interests in ruling the country, there really is little question that the Venezuelans are much more committed and involved than their American counterparts. Insofar as democracy is conceived of as egalitarian, Venezuela has a leg up too, in that if you look at the people who are actually elected to office in America, there is really an extremely narrow economic and social range that they come from. That isn't the case in Venezuela. Don't mistake the failure of Chavez to protect the liberal liberties we associate with democracy as a failure of democracy itself, as the democratic process is something to admire in Venezuela. Look, part of the problem with the American adventure in democracy building is in conceiving of democracy in incredibly narrow terms, so that what in effect we are pursuing is many little Americas. That isn't going to happen. Liberal democracy (or liberal democratic federalist republics, as it were) can happen when there is the necessary economic, social and security infrastructure to make it possible. Those conditions exist in very few places in the world. If we really want to spread democracy, (and I don't think we do) we've got to concede that democracy in Myanmar or Jordan or Liberia or Uzbekistan just isn't going to look the way it does here. They are much less likely to have the host of liberal freedoms and protections of minorities we enjoy here. It's not ideal, but neither are the realistic alternatives.
Bill: I didn't change the subject, I was just putting the two together and suggesting that they don't fit all that well together. Freddie: I can appreciate the distinctions you're trying to draw here and agree that: (a) people drawn from a wider range of socio-economic classes are in parliament in Venezuela than in the US (b) that "democratization", whatever it means, certainly doesn't mean expecting a bunch of little Americas populating the globe. But I'm not sure that (a) is actually a sign of a more robust democratic process in Venezuela. After all, what "the people" want is often a quite difficult thing to figure out, even if the population as a whole is engaged in free deliberative processes. But that's not what is going on in Venezuela, so far as I can tell. (This is why free speech matters even for purely democratic processes - you can't even get a reasonable sense of popular will when the main organs of the media are closely controlled by the state). Why are the people in parliament actually in parliament - because they "represent" in some meaningful way their constituents? Or because they'll do what Chavez wants them to do? If there's a conflict between what Chavez wants to do and what the popular will demands, who will win out, do you suppose? Chavez seems to me much more of a populist authoritarian, who very smartly manipulates democratic institutions and processes to maintain his mostly unopposed political authority, even if he uses that authority in ways that please some portion of the population. Isn't he just a Huey Long of Venezuela? Finally, I really just don't see the rationale for the hangup regarding autocratic/authoritarian labels. (And Putin seems pretty darned close to being an autocrat in any case). Whatever sorts of policy prescriptions (if any) flow from one would also seem to flow from another. (Maybe the exception here would be that "authoritarian" governments might be thought to have more defined factions that could be played off one another, but that seems pretty small potatoes).
Now, as you say, you're no China expert (and neither am I), but how does the Chinese government differ in essential respects from, say, the quite autocratic (indeed, the paradigmatic example of autocratic) government of 19th century Russia? Uh, the absence of an autocrat? Is this a trick question or something?
Ross - You have to ask a simple question (keep in mind who Kagan's wife is): "Is it in Kagan's interest to catagorize those countries that way?" Ofcourse it is - terminology is always debatable.
by almost any criteria, Venezuela has a more robust democratic process than the United States. A far higher percentage of the populations vote. The population as a whole is vastly more politically connected and engaged. You have an odd idea of what makes democracy. As for Chavez, the man is just a caudillo.
You have an odd idea of what makes democracy No. I have an accurate idea of what makes democracy. What I don't have is the misapprehension that liberal freedoms are synonymous with democracy. Again, let me note that I hate the restrictions on free speech, am not a fan of the Chavez government in many ways and have never said that Venezuela is a better or more free place to live than America. But, look, citizen participation and engagement are good things in a democracy, and Venezuelans take their democracy more seriously than Americans do, and to their credit.
Put this in your pipe and smoke it: by almost any criteria, Venezuela has a more robust democratic process than the United States. A far higher percentage of the populations vote. Uh huh. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005494 At this juncture, the political opposition in this robust democracy has been reduced as a consequence of state harrassment to one seat in eight in the national legislature.
???
I hate it when Americans feel like they have the right to get involved in the internal affairs of other countries. However the Chinese, the Venezuelans, the Russians or the Jamaicans run their own show That should be rendered more precisely, as in "However the unaccountable political elites of China, Russia, and Venezuela run the show for their respective demobilized publics..."
Pearls of wisdom from my critics: "And of course, the United States is more properly called a federal republic than a direct democracy." (good luck with the rest of 8th grade!) "Et me hasten to add that the restrictions of freedom of speech are of course horrendous, and I'm no fan of many aspects of the current government." "And as always, they can blame not actually standing up to the bad guys on liberals." Sorry I interrupted the genius club!
I don't know how one could make the argument that Venezuela is run by an 'elite' today. On the contrary, for the first time in at least fifty years, you have a government that isn't made up of the oligarchy. Venezuela has been ruled by one faction or another of that same oligarchy at least since the advent of 'democracy' in 1958. Whether that faction called itself social democratic or Christian democratic, their basic interest was the same, to preserve their property and their privileged economic and social status. Like in a great many other developing countries, liberal freedoms have been invoked by powerful elites to protect themselves against incursions on 'their' property and privileges.As usual, whenever a developing nation starts taking the nation's resources back from the elites that monopolize them, and providing the poor with the health, education, nutrition, land, and economic power that they deserve, U.S. conservatives join the side of the parasitic Venezuelan oligarchy.
"Sorry I interrupted the genius club!" Why is this idiot fourth grader interrupting our eighth grade civics class discussion? Larison nailed this one. We've allowed "democracy" to be conflated in our national dialogue with liberal capitalism, free speech, mom, apple pie, fluffy bunnies, and everything else good and wholesome in the world. The precision of language in our foreign policy debates has sunk to Orwellian depths. Given that prominent neoconservative intellectuals evidently don't know what democracy is, this may help to explain why they think their insane policies are somehow "promoting" it.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream 
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
The Atlantic, October 2008 Is Pornography Adultery?The Atlantic, June 2008 Redeeming Dubya
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I don't know what label you want to use for China, but China is neither a democracy nor a rights-respecting government.
If you don't want to say "autocratic", how about "illegitimate brutal authoritarian dictatorship full of people who seek to control every aspect of society and don't have the guts to stand for an election and make grandiose claims to represent 1.2 billion people whom they subjugated by force"?
But I agree, Venezuela and Russia are not autocracies.
Posted by Dilan Esper | October 29, 2007 10:37 PM