Going over old ground

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010819

'The war in Iraq and the rise of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, aided by the ballot box, are Exhibits A and B in the case against the Bush Doctrine and its contention that democracy can put down roots in Arab soil.'

Is there really a debate going on along such wizened and constrained lines? Are there really highly paid, highly esteemed intellectuals and politicians who still see things in such trivial ways?

The idea that somehow having political parties and elections will make Gaza into Canada is so simplistic and clumsy that even small children would have trouble giving it serious attention. I think of the real situation like this- power courses through societies like blood through a body. In a healthy body-politic, power runs through the 'legitimate' and purpose-designed channels, and make the body powerful and successful. In an unhealthy one, power runs through secret and 'illegitimate' channels made by the people who want power more than they want a healthy society. They drastically weaken society, make it inefficient and wasteful, but they don't care, because they mostly end up with whatever power is available. Britain, America, France and all the other successful nations benefit hugely from power being channeled through the public and legitimate channels- the whole nation feels that it is successfully connected to power, even in tiny ways like going to the ballot box and voting.

In some countries, like Zimbabwe, Kenya and Nigeria, there was a time in the past when power did get channeled through the public and legitimate channels. In other countries like Syria and Egypt, there has never been a transition of power that wasn't based on simple brute force. Both sets of countries are inherently less stable than the successful nations, as a lot of energy is spent by the small ruling classes fighting to maintain control of people who don't consider their rulers legitimate, who are disconnected from the blood-flow of power completely. Nations with healthy power distribution systems consequentially build a corporate identity which includes everyone, and leverage all that goodwill and energy into growth and beneficial activity. Its obvious that without an intact and healthy power distribution system, no state can really thrive.

So what do you ACTUALLY need to be successful? You need rulers and ruled who are willing to play within the rules. You need a dispassionate and powerful system of justice to decide when the rules have been broken and effectively punish the rulebreaker. You need rules that recognise the real way that things happen, which are not simply utopian. You need a way to transfer power from one set of rulers to another which is publicly agreed by all parties. You need long-term systems of bureaucracy which enable rulers to direct activity in their societies effectively and in a timely manner. You need at least some form of public representation, so there is a visible and concrete manifestation of the great mass of the ruled.

And last of all, you need the above to be institutionalised, so they can live on through many generations.

There is no reason why Arabs can't have the above, or indeed eskimos or Mongolians or Hottentots. There is no intrinsic reason why every nation on earth can't have them. But there is always habit, and the presence of tiny but powerful groups of men who just won't allow these institutions to grow. Like Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party. So sometimes, America and Britain and the other healthy, successful countries will have to kill the Saddam Husseins and the Mahmoud Ahmadinejads so they can't impinge on the growth of these institutions any more. Sad but true.

And then there's Pakistan, but thats a whole nother story...