Democracy- only part of the solution

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402564.html

Excellent article about 'secularism' and 'islamism' in Turkey, and the non-obvious truths about those two strands in Turkish politics.

"So why do you think the E.U. is so opposed to military intervention?" I asked. "Surely they don't want a Taliban regime in southern Europe?"
"They want to split us up into Kurds, Armenians and Turks," he answered. "That way they can reduce our influence in the region and control the resources of the Middle East."
This is a deeply held belief. Turks are raised on an unremitting diet of this Ottoman paranoia, which is now so thoroughly merged with the secularists' legitimate concerns that it is difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins. It is hardly a solid foundation for a politically mature democracy. Indeed, the concept of "democracy" is generally poorly understood. At lunch the other day, I asked our shy young waiter what he thought of Gul.
"I don't know. But democracy is good," he shrugged.
"So who are you going to vote for?" I asked.
He looked horrified. "I never vote."

What is the obsession with democracy? Why, out of all the institutions which successful rich countries have built their societies around, is democracy virtually the only one that gets airtime? Its not that I have any problem with countries choosing democracy, although it is a blunt instrument and is in no way a guarantor of good governance. By itself, democracy is no panacea. If all the parties in an election are fascistic or special interest poodles or the property of a few rich men, the results will be just as awful as if those parties took over the country by force. Zimbabwe has democracy. Every few years, they have elections and a bunch of people troop off to the polling booths. But because the forms of civil society in Zimbabwe are completely divorced from the functions, the elections have no effect on governance outcomes. The same guys are permanently in charge, as if the voting never happened. For democracy to be worth anything, many things must be true a priori.

If civil institutions are to properly fulfil their function, they must be an organic product of the society they exist in. They must have the vigourous support of the nation, and not just the ruling classes. From top to bottom, everyone must trust and believe that a particular institution capably and authoritatively fulfils the function it was founded to fulfil. People must feel that the institution is their institution, and acts on their behalf. Sadly, many countries have copied western Europe's political forms without bothering to fulfil these prerequisites. In these countries, the real functions are performed out of sight, unaccountably and almost certainly in exactly same way those functions were perfomed in the old days.

Merely grafting an institution like election-holding onto a society does nothing to improve its overall functioning. If you don't have the full suite, and broad public faith in their legitimacy, you just have a sham. Turkey is not really a parliamentary democracy. Every time the 'wrong' result occurs the Army 'changes' the result and takes over the country. The old habits of Turkish political behaviour have mutated a little, but they survive intact under the borrowed clothes of a western democracy. One day, Turkey might develop institutions that genuinely reflect the values of free and just democractic societies ruling on behalf of all citizens, but they aren't there yet.