Lucia

de Vernai

Read Lucia's bio and previous columns

March 3, 2008

Will Democracy in Iraq Go the Vladimir Putin Route?

The division may no longer be made of stone, but the separation between former countries of the Eastern Bloc and present-day Russia couldn’t be more tangible.

The behavior of politicians during elections is questionable. Poland’s former President Aleksander Kwasniewski made a public appearance at Kiev University drunk and cost his party an election. Even so, Russia’s patent disregard for democratic procedure (even the formalities), its officials’ audacity to admit to it freely and, perhaps most disturbingly, the lack of Western interference in light of this behavior, is troubling.

In a series of stories about the contemporary Russian democracy, The New York Times quoted a leader of President Putin’s party as stating that, “In my opinion, at a certain stage, like now, it is not only useful, it is even necessary – we are tired of democratic twists and turns,” and adding, “It may sound sacrilegious, but I would propose to suspend all this election business for the time being, at least for managerial positions.”

It didn’t take sanctions or month-long negotiations, let alone inspectors. Russia’s bypassing of the democratic process – complete with opponent intimidation and bribery – raises serious concerns about the future of European and world stability, but should also function as a cautionary tale for governments trying to establish democracy in other parts of the world.

Implementing democratic procedures and establishing a self-sustaining infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven to be far more challenging than we initially thought. The present situation in Russia is an indicator that even nearly two decades after the movement toward democracy, the fall into an authoritarian pattern of behavior is likely.

For Americans, it is difficult to imagine how such regress is possible. Once you have arrived at the peak of political freedom, how could you ever go back? Things were going so well, we thought, we can move on to another area of the world that needs rescuing from its ways. Russia’s relapse is an indicator that no matter how committed and well-intentioned outside forces are, democracy – a governing mechanism for the people by the people – is entirely contingent on them.

This is bound to be the excuse coming from the European Union and American governments that will cite sovereignty as a reason to keep out. It’s curious how sovereignty and self-determination did not come into the equation when the Bush Administration was heading for the Middle East.

Then again, there weren’t de Vernaiions of dollars in trade, contracts and weapons involved. Judging from the deafening silence coming from other democratic nations, the stand for democracy is a means, not the end. The ultimate deciding factor is influence – and Putin is not one to be crossed. Maneuvering his way into another position of power after the eight years in the presidency the constitution allows, the former KGB member has shown that you don’t have to be on the ballot to win.  

This is bound to become a warning for the Iraqis. After Western forces are gone, the best way to keep them out is to get powerful enough so that further interference is no longer in the best interest of outsiders. The great thing about democracy, as Putin demonstrates, is that it is flexible and open to constitutional interpretation.

If that doesn’t build morale in Iraq, nothing will.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.