Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
Joe Biden came to the presidency of the United States of America at a very trying time for
American democracy and when globally democracy was on the decline. Varieties of Democracy
report 2022 tells us that ‘2021 comes with a record number of nations autocratizing in the last 50
years’, with some 2.8 billion people affected (https://v-dem.net/media/publications/dr_2022.pdf).
Coming to the presidency after Donald Trump, somewhat relevant the report also noted that,
‘toxic levels of polarization contribute to electoral victories of anti-pluralist leaders and the
empowerment of their autocratic agendas.’ As if the deteriorating condition of US democracy is
not sufficient of a challenge or perhaps because of its significance Biden proceeded to define his
foreign policy largely in terms of democracy versus autocracy. Washington, he claimed, ‘would
lead the free world to victory in a great struggle between democracy and autocracy, between
liberty and repression, between a rules-based order and one governed by brute force’
(www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2022-05-24/how-make-bidens-free-world-
strategy-work?check_logged_in=1).
For decades the United States of America has sold itself as the virtuous ‘shining city on the hill’:
an exemplar of prosperity, democracy, human rights and other such qualities, and global
democracy promotion is an important element of US foreign policy. However, for the first time,
protecting and promoting democracy has been given this pivotal position. Of course, autocratic
regimes cannot simply be wished away: they will have to be dealt with and in the practice of
international politics outcomes regularly run counter to and can actually stymie idealized
objectives. Therefore, Biden’s bold democratic initiative was given a poor chance of achieving
anything significant. This is until President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine and sent shivers up
the spine of the global liberal democratic establishments.
The Russia Federation holds elections and has an elected president and parliamentary system but
no one seriously believed that it was a democracy, much less a liberal one. On the V-Dem index,
Russia is classed as an ‘elected autocracy’. Indeed, some would argue that if it was a democracy
it would not have feared having a democratic Ukraine or NATO on its borders. Emmanuel
Kant’s inspired ‘democratic peace’ theory holds that liberal democratic countries are unlikely to
wage war with each other and have not done so for more than 100 years. Putin’s fear suggests
not only that he is not a democrat but that he may well have more repressive internal intentions
and external expansionist goals. This very argument suggests that given the autocratic nature of
his regime, Putin must indeed have real concerns. Liberal democratic countries may go to war
with each other but they have had no compunction in attacking and undermining non-democratic
countries.
At a more practical level, the results of the invasion appear to have significantly induced the very
context that it sought to avoid. Out of fear of Russia and recognising that NATO is reluctant to
become directly involved in the affairs of non-members, other normally neutral neighboring
countries – Sweden and Finland – have now shown interest in doing precisely what the invasion
of Ukraine was intended to prevent. Furthermore, 4 months on, all of Russia’s military might is
unable to subdue a much lesser foe in the matter of days as was predicted. The Putin regime has
had to come face to face with the notion of ‘mutually assured destruction’, which in the context
of the present socio/economic condition of Russia, might not at all be mutual. Every existing nuclear power must at least be giving serious thought to this situation and pondering their
options.
Liberal democracy is politically united as never before and the US will attempt to sustain and
develop upon this opportunity. It will be less tolerant of the old international governance
framework that posited forms of autocracy as a legitimate alternative to liberal democracy.
Autocratic regimes will only be opportunistically tolerated. For example, given its economic and
geo-political power, China will have to be respected but not the weaker peripheral autocrats in
the Americas and elsewhere. Particularly at this early stage, in which thousands of people have
lost their lives, whole economies have been upended, people dislocated, etc., it will not, without
good reason, appear to be cuddling autocracies. Indeed, more than before as we go forward,
every opportunity will be taken to discourage autocracy and support the establishment of liberal
democracy.
As a result of its ethnic configuration, Guyana has been badly ruled over the last seven decades
and its present position on the V-Dem index is only slightly above Russia: it is classed as an
‘elected’ verging upon being an ‘autocratic’ democracy. The level of ethnic polarization has
traditionally allowed governments to act autocratically and thus in spite of bountiful natural
resources and quite resourceful people, over the decades many lives and much property have
been lost in ethnic conflicts and the country has remained one of the poorest in the region.
Even without the Monroe Doctrine, given its geographic position and size, Guyana would be
firmly in the US sphere of interest and in 2020, in what some consider a revolutionary statement,
the US State Department country report on human rights called upon Guyana’s political
establishment to end the present winner-takes-all system and establish a functioning liberal
democracy. The British have been suggesting this as a solution to the ethnic problem since the
1950s, but as is usual in these cases, the ethnic political oligarchs in Guyana appear fixated on
grabbing and holding power by whatever means.
Joe Biden is somewhat versed about political relations in these kinds of troublesome countries.
He was in a group of senators in the 1980s who began pushing for greater US diplomatic
involvement in Northern Ireland and from his seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
he helped push the Clinton administration into committing resources and political capital to
broker the shared-governance Good Friday Agreement of 1998 that brought an end to a not too
dissimilar long ethnic quarrel in Northern Ireland. It is said that his ‘commitment to defending
the Good Friday agreement is baked into his political history and identity’
(www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/10/why-joe-biden-is-so-invested-in-defending-good-
friday-agreement).
I make no mention of Guyana’s newly discovered oil resources because I believe too much is
made of them. Apart from having more resources to fritter away trying to buy votes, the PPP
government up to 2015 was as autocratic as it is today. Secondly, Venezuela’s experience
suggests that the US political establishment will not look kindly upon the entrenchment of an
autocratic oil regime in Guyana. Thirdly, according to a 2022 poll conducted for the International
Republican Institute, only 22% of respondents said ‘definitely yes’ when asked if the declared
official election results reflect the will of the people!
Perhaps these are also reasons why indications of a liberal democratic pathway were suggested to
the ethnic political oligarchies that are still trying to manipulate the electorate and elections to
make marginal ‘wins’ that give them the authority to do as they please!
.
—————————————————————————————-
