*Topicality/Definitions Democracy Promotion Includes Military Intervention
Democracy Promotion Imperialistic: Violates Sovereignty
Download 2.51 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Democracy Promotion Paternalistic: Generally
- Democracy Promotion Paternalistic- “Partnership” Claims Irrelevant
Democracy Promotion Imperialistic: Violates SovereigntyDEMOCRACY PROMOTION VIOLATES SOVEREIGNTY Larry Diamond, Senior Fellow Hoover Institute, In Search of Democracy, 2016, p. 422 There are many reasons to think that the US should “keep its nose out of other people’s business,” at least in terms of how states are governed internally. To begin with, a strict reading of the norms of sovereignty, as codified by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, grants each state not only territorial integrity but also the exclusive right to determine its own policies and governmental structures within its territory. From this has come the principle of “nonintervention” in the internal affairs of other states, which was elevated to an early sacred status during the immediate post-World War II era of decolonization and has been written into the charter of the World Bank (the IRBD) and other international structures. When states invite international assistance for their efforts to administer free and fair elections, build independent judiciaries, and construct and deepen other structures of democracy, that is one thing. But when other democracies provide assistance to independent organizations, human right activists, critical media, and opposition movements that are trying to change a state’s form of government from authoritarianism to democracy, this is a form of intervention, however peaceful the means and idealistic the motivation. Democracy Promotion Paternalistic: GenerallyCONNECTING AID MISSIONS WITH DEMOCRACY GOALS MASKS UNEQUAL NORTH/SOUTH RELATIONS Maria Eriksson Baaz, Goteborg University-Department of Peace and Development-Researcher, 2005, The Paternalism of Partnership: a postcolonial reading of identity in development aid, p. 116-7 One area of competence attributed to the development worker Self concerns democracy, equality and “concern for the weak in society.” This special competence follows from an image of the Self as democratic, unconcerned with status and power positions, and with a genuine care about the weak and poor in society. This self-image, which in the context studied here is constructed in opposition to an image of Tanzanian society as undemocratic, elitist, lacking in concern for “the weak” in society, reflects longstanding and generally shared meanings attached to an enlightened Western Self. Representatives of a democratic, humanist European Self constituted an integral part of the colonial project. It defined the white man’s burden – to spread the light of democracy and equality, to liberate the Other from the reign of terror and despotism, and to install a spirit of liberty and equality. As we saw in Chapter 2, this self-image reveals the basic contradiction inherent in the colonial project – the ways in which the colonizer claimed proprietorship of a universal humanism that was not accessible to all. While colonization was legitimized in the name of liberty and equality, the colonial project and its practices displayed the limits of this self-image. As Doty puts it, this image of a “democratic, freedom-loving, and humanitarian Western Self” has continued to inform postcolonial South-North relations (Doty 1996: 125). Interventions of various sorts have been legitimized through references to this image of the Self as guardian of democracy and development aid, and credits are increasingly provided or denied by reference to sufficient or insufficient levels of democracy. Democracy Promotion Paternalistic- “Partnership” Claims IrrelevantDEPSITE THE EMPHASIS ON “PARTNERSHIP” IN DEMOCRACY ASSISTANCE/CIVIC EDUCATION PROGRAMS THEY ARE INHERENTLY UNEQUAL AND PATERNALISTIC Doyle Stevick, Education Professor-University of South Carolina, 2008, Advancing Democracy Through Education: US influence abroad and domestic practices, eds. E. Stevic & B. Levinson, p. 108-9 The individuals who work for donor and recipient organizations have drastically different levels of resources, educational attainment, expertise, local knowledge, experience under oppressive and free governments, language ability and economic security, “Rhetoric of collaboration and partnership notwithstanding” (Samoff, 1999, p. 60), many partnerships “employed the language of collaboration and joint effort as they created an institutional apparatus for the leading role of international organizations” (p. 62). Control of the purse-strings and the ability to dictate the agenda went hand in hand with the transmission orientation discussed earlier. The mission-statement of IFES is representative of this paradoxical dynamic between democratic rhetoric and unequal relationships: “Our staff is truly global, with 150 professionals from 25 countries leading technical assistance projects for international and bilateral donor organizations such as USAID, the UN, DFID, the OSCE and others … IFES’ international professionals ensure that democracy solutions are homegrown. Every IFES project team partners with local organizations, and every project is staffed by local personnel … IFES professionals work closely with local networks to deliver expertise that fits the needs of the country or client…IFES professionals provide technical assistance across many areas of democracy development. We have developed service lines and regional representation around the world that allow our professionals to deliver democracy solutions rapidly –with the innovation, experience, and results that only an organization with almost 20 years of dedicated democracy work can do.” IFES’s statement of philosophy clearly articulates the value of local knowledge and involvement in democratization, and yet, despite the emphasis upon “home grown solutions” (which are “ensured” by their professional) the language all implies transmission: solutions are “delivered” by professionals who “provide technical assistance.” That all projects are staffed by local personnel hints at the power imbalance involved. The American leader of another partnership was more blunt about the balance of power in his relationship: when one of his Baltic partners followed the money and engaged in project work with Americans who had managed to procure this partner’s usual source of funding, he noted that, “I didn’t punish him for cooperating with our competitors.” These imbalances result in unequal relationships and complicate the possibility of the participants engaging in free and open discussion. These problems are particularly acute among partners who are largely dependent on foreign funding for their own economic security, an issue that is explored in the next section. Domestic partners may be less than forthcoming about their own views and problem if they want to cultivate their donors’ good will by agreeing with their positions or by making them feel important or needed. Wedel called this tendency the: “ritual of listening to foreigners, in which the naïve but self-assured Westerner would encounter the shrewd Pole, who deftly charmed his guest while revealing nothing of what he truly thought…Many Poles had mastered the sophisticated art of impressing Westerners while maneuvering to get what they wanted. “(Wedel, 201, p. 3) SHIFT TOWARDS “PARTNERSHIP” IN ASSISTANCE PROJECTS HAS NOT CHALLENGED UNEQUAL RELATIONSHIIPS Maria Eriksson Baaz, Goteborg University-Department of Peace and Development-Researcher, 2005, The Paternalism of Partnership: a postcolonial reading of identity in development aid, p. 6-7 As several writers have shown and as is evident from the continual return and topicality of the debate, the creation of a non-paternalist, equal relationship has proven difficult in practice. Those few studies that have addressed the questions of partnership more specifically conclude that it is often poorly reflected in the practice of development aid. As Emma Crew and Elisabeth Harrison (1998:188) contend, “a yawning chasm remains between the stated goals of development and its practices and outcomes. Ambitious aims of partnership…often appear disappointingly empty.” While few studies have analyzed and theorized “the problem of partnership” directly, one quite common position seems to be that concepts such as participation and partnership function as political slogans to hide other motives. This perspective often features implicit and explicit assumptions about intentions. Partnership is presented as “empty rhetoric,” as “a tactic” that functions to mask other goals, such as lowering the costs of development aid or the restoration of accountability in order to legitimate continued presence in the face of increasing criticism. According to this perspective, partnership fails to materialize in practice simply because “the developers” never had the intention of creating a “more equal relationship” in which “local actors progressively take the lead.” PARTNERSHIP DISCOURSE SERVES INSTRUMENTAL PURPOSE – NOT REALLY ABOUT ADDRESSING UNEQUAL RELATIONSHIP Maria Eriksson Baaz, Goteborg University-Department of Peace and Development-Researcher, 2005, The Paternalism of Partnership: a postcolonial reading of identity in development aid, p. 7 This book is critical of such a conclusion. The partnership discourse should not, of course, be idealized as reflecting an unambiguous intention or wish to re-create power relations. While it has a normative, moral dimension, it also serves an instrumental purpose. As Crewe and Harrison put it, “many recommendations about partnership, by both practitioners and academics have more to do with management of projects than with challenging power relations” (1998: 75). According to Brinkerhoff (2002:7) “The most obvious motivation for establishing a partnership is the desire to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of development efforts.” That the partnership discourse is related to efforts to increase sustainability is evident. Except for more general formulations – disavowing paternalism and emphasizing equality – the concepts ownership and responsibility are often featured in partnership policies. Responsibility and ownership are here connected to the partner. As stated in the DAC policy quoted earlier, partnership means that partners should “assume greater responsibility for their own development.” The emphasis on ownership and responsibility must be seen in relation to a perceived need to enhance sustainability. The supposed lack of sustainability is today often attributed to partners; organizational and institutional capacity and aid-dependence. One solution proposed is to “improve partnerships” – “the partners of aid agencies are expected to achieve self-reliance through capacity building” (Crewe and Harrison 1998: 70). The other concepts that often feature in partnership policies – openness, transparency and mutual goals -- must also be seen as reflecting this perceived need to enhance sustainability by “improving partnerships.” It is often emphasized that partnership means that the partners share and work towards the same goal and that the relationship must be transparent and open. Hence discourses on partnership and sustainability overlap in a way that makes it difficult to separate them. However, even though the partnership discourse is related to, and influenced by, other discourses such as sustainability or aid dependence, this does not mean that partnership should be seen as empty rhetoric, as a conscious tactic, which reflects nothing more than a move to restore legitimacy by enhancing sustainability. This would be too simple. Directory: assets assets -> Northern territory of australia assets -> Number: caveat in the [Will/Will and Codicil/Estate of] assets -> Invitation for Bid Calact/mbta for Standard Floor and Low Floor Rural Duty Vehicles ifb no. 12-03 November 14, 2012 assets -> 12 Step Retreats For Everyone in Twelve Step Recovery Ratner Fellowship assets -> 12 Step Retreats For Everyone in Twelve Step Recovery Ratner Fellowship assets -> Sigaccess annual Report assets -> Central Government is expected to ask the seventh pay commission to consider merging 50% dearness allowance assets -> List of accessible executive records assets -> Emergency telephone numbers Call toll-free from anywhere in France Download 2.51 Mb. Share with your friends:
|