Towards Universal Sufferage

Ask any American neo-conservative their strategy on global security and the answer they will give will be straight-forward, focused and well thought out. It involves American military, financial clout of of course, full spectrum dominance. The reality is that PNAC have been a lot more successful than liberal thinkers in offering and putting into action a comprehensive policy for remaking the world in their image. They are completely right about the need to do something about the world's dictatorships and promote the spread of democracy. It's just a shame they're wrong about how to do it.

Liberals need to respond with equally brave but this time liberal, practical and tolerant approaches to the question of how promote freedoms and democracy globally in a world where around 50% still live in dictatorships. "Wouldn't it be nice if the US obeyed the UN" and "I'm quite pro-European, I don't want to go to war with Luxembourg" are not good enough and are easily outflanked by twin assaults from PNAC and the world's dictatorships.

I'm going to propose three strategies that liberals should develop and promote. Because we've been lacking any credible direction since the end of the cold war, these approaches may seem dangerously radical. In this case, as so often, the danger lies instead with conservatism and not having a strategy at all.

Firstly, democracies and democratic regional blocks must acknowledge that they have a strategic interest and moral priority in attacking the dictatorships within their fields of influence. With the European Union this is most obviously Belarus, and some countries in Africa. For the US this includes Central Asia particularly amongst many others. Winning these countries over is not done by isolation - free trade and economic interdependence spreads democracy, and there should be significant and long-term investments in civil society and business in those countries. Teaching market economics, parliamentary democracy, organisational and change management as well as democratic organisation to as many as possible of a country's middle class or elite creates an internal interest group who will organise themselves to promote democracy in the country. There are some organisations who are already active in these fields. There need to be a lot more.

Apathy is only half the reason why this has not yet been done. For many countries, most notably the United States, having a stable dictatorship next door or supplying one's power is often seen as preferable to an unstable democracy. We must develop a consensus where democratic development of their neighbours is the political priority of all democracies and where there is action taken against any democracy which breaks from the consensus.

Working locally within countries is a long-term process, and in the meantime we place our trust in the United Nations as the ultimate adjudicator of international law. It is an organisation which has eradicated whole diseases, yet has not managed to stop genocides, most recently in Rwanda and Darfur. It is an organisation where democracies can do great things, but where dictatorships have equal power to democracies. The first step is therefore the creation of a permanent UN Democracy Caucus - a standing committee open only to full members of the Community of Democracies.

As what would be the world's most legitimate body for decision-making, the UN Democracy Caucus should gradually take over the budgets and influence of the ECOSOC committee as well as developing its own funded political activities, all within the framework of sustainable activities which promote democracy and defend against its opponents, in whatever shape they take. Incentives to move in the direction of the community would be in terms of diplomatic, trade and aid agreements. Armed with such tools, democratic countries actively working against the promotion of global democracy could be equally encouraged to think geo-strategically instead of purely in a national frame.

The final proposal addresses both the urgent questions of democratic development as well as climate change. Liberal democracies quite rarely attack each other, but in an inter-dependent world, quite rarely is not good enough. Global trade and movement has created a truly interdependent world, which has in turn spawned the WTO and the IMF as undemocratic but effective organisations to facilitate that interdependence and protect against shocks.

It seems obvious that we are equally interdependent when it comes to the state of the world's environment, and the Kyoto protocol was a hesitant first step towards addressing that. Kyoto should be celebrated for being that first step, but small steps are not enough, and even a successfully implemented Kyoto would barely make an impact on the world's climate. The European Union should seek partners for its emission's trading scheme and expand its scope to trading in a variety of pollution commodities on a country as well as corporate basis. Any such organisation conducted through secretive diplomacy would have the same issues with legitimacy as the WTO and the IMF, as such the organisation should develop into a global parliamentary assembly, following the model of the European Parliament.

As the assembly gains both members and legitimacy, it will inevitably pick up new powers, and tools with which to incentivise active membership and participation. In a not so far distant future where both energy and pollution become equally tradeable liquid commodities with
floating values on the global market, access to energy and markets could be limited to those democracies taking part in the assembly. Domestic political pressure would ensure that adequate and sophisticated human rights become a requirement, and priviledges from the body could be granted on a sliding scale based on the level of democratisation of any non-members.
Democratic development and environmental responsibility can be made an explicit priority of all countries and is a lot more likely to save the environment than any amount of organic cauliflower.

Political party membership in the United Kingdom is today vastly outnumbered compared to those signing up to causes as disparate as war, genocide, climate, poverty and inequality. These movements are significant in highlighting problems, but they do not have coherent solutions.
A liberal consensus is urgently needed on the geo-strategic direction of our democratic civilisation. We cannot hide behind abandoned cars and potholes at the same time as asking people to put their faith in us to look after their wider interests.