Democratic Transition Key to Meeting U.S. National Security Interests

Democratic Transition Key to Meeting U.S. National Security Interests

Jeffrey Feltman, Assistant Secretary of State-Near Eastern Affairs, 2011, House Hearing: Assessing U.S. Foreign Policy Priorities and Needs Amidst Economic Challenges in the Middle East, March 01, [http://www.hcfa.house.gov/112/65055.pdf], p. 11

The historic changes currently underway in the region have reaffirmed our consistent message to our partners: security and stability are best achieved by governments that recognize the legitimate aspirations of their people. Our ability to realize our core interests in the region—achieving a just, comprehensive peace and lasting security between Israel and its neighbors; halting Iran’s illicit nuclear activities and countering its use of violence and terrorism in support of its regional goals; supporting a sovereign, stable, self-reliant Iraq; countering terrorist groups; and expanding trade and communications lines—is, in the long run, enhanced by our ability to partner with more representative governments. Successful democratic transitions in Egypt and Tunisia and the establishment of meaningful democratic reforms in other regional states are worthwhile in and of themselves, but will also be the most effective counter to Iranian negative influence in the region as well as the extremist ideologies that fuel terrorism. Our regional partners will be stronger partners in the long run if their power and legitimacy is based in genuine democratic support. We will continue to push leaders to engage positively with their people, with civil society, and with business, as we pursue our other interests in the region.

Democratic Transition Reduces Poverty and Inequality

Larry Diamond, Senior Fellow Hoover Institute, In Search of Democracy, 2016, p. 385-6

The perspective adopted here is that the obstacles to the elimination of poverty are heavily, if not fundamentally, political. This is not to deny that poverty is, by definition, an economic phenomenon, resulting from inadequate income with which to live a minimally dignified and decent life and inadequate assets (human, financial, and infrastructural) with which to generate such incomes. Neither is it to neglect the many ways in which social norms and relations structure and reproduce poverty. It is merely to acknowledge that transforming these economic and social realities requires, in large measure, policy responses by the state to empower the poor.

Empowerment implies providing the poor with assets—education, health care, credit, potable water, electricity, roads—that enable them to be productive. It also requires an enabling environment for poverty reduction, including a transparent and efficient state bureaucracy, a fair and accessible justice system, and protection for their property rights. When the poor are able to nourish themselves and protect their health, raise their skills, educate their children, finance their productive activities, transport their crops and goods to markets, register their property and enterprises, and protect their rights without discrimination, they are well capable of producing their way out of poverty.

However, in every nation where much of the population remains trapped in absolute poverty, circumstances conspire to prevent the poor from doing these things. These circumstances are invariably political, in that they involve powerful actors at various levels of society and the political system who benefit from a “disabling environment” for the poor and use their power to perpetuate it. This privileged and quite often predatory elite is typically a tiny minority. Logically, one would expect that democracy—a political system that includes regular, free, and fair elections in which the people choose their rulers – should empower the poor majority to constrain these powerful elites by choosing leaders, parties, and policies that favor poverty reduction.

Larry Diamond, Senior Fellow Hoover Institute, In Search of Democracy, 2016, p. 389-90

In principle, democracy should provide a corrective, empowering the poor in the following ways. First, when competitive elections are truly free and fair, they serve as an instrument to remove corrupt, unresponsive, or ineffectual leaders. They thus provide an incentive for leaders to govern more effectively in the public interest, and to attend to the needs and concerns of the poor majority. Second, democracy provides nonelectoral means for the poor to articulate and defend their interests, and to participate in the making of public policy—through nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), informal associations, community-based organizations, interest groups, social movements, and the mass media. Third, democracy enables all these actors in civil society, as well as elected representatives at various levels of government, to monitor the conduct of public officials and to seek redress in the courts and administrative forums. With such participation and debate, the poor are more likely to feel some sense of ownership of the resulting policies, which they perceive can help them craft their way out of poverty. But all of this depends not just on democracy, but also on freedom.