There is an interesting opinion piece in the New York Times by Charles Kupchan about democracy in Egypt. He does not try to make the case
for or against democracy in Egypt. Instead, he raises some interesting
questions about the pursuit of
democracy either in Egypt or wherever. His basic point is that rushing to
democracy may actually “[do] more harm than good.” We have seen in the past
couple decades that one measure of democracy is the election metric. States are
initially determined as democratic when they hold a successful election. That
then opens the door for their acceptance into the international club of
democratic states, and it grants easier access to aid. I think there are problems with that
singular measure, but I can understand its political temptation. He suggests
the track record of states that rush to elections is actually worse than those
that incrementally become democratic.
He offers several examples, beginning with Bosnia, of states having
failed in that attempt. Although I have a slight bit of reservation about his
examples, he does highlight a recent liberal trend to zealously
promote democracy. At the core of this hopeful democratic peace is a fundamental
question of how to structure a state for democracy. Should a state democratize
before it liberalizes, or should a state liberalize before it democratizes?
In the coming month or two I am going to attempt to analyze
that question by looking at the constitutions of Afghanistan and Somalia. Both
countries are supposedly emerging democracies. Both countries are, I think, in
different conditions of liberalization relative to their democratization. Both
countries have recently undergone fundamental shifts in their governing
structures. However, I think the way their fundamental shifts occurred differs,
and that difference may be evident in their constitutions. My hypothesis is
that Afghanistan’s framework is being rushed before a foundational polity
exists to fulfill that framework, similar to what Kupchan suggests. Somalia, on
the other hand, may not be quite as rushed to become democratic and is
therefore on a different path to establish a foundational polity that can
fulfill its constitutional framework.
I welcome any thoughts on the matter regarding my initial
hypothesis or the potentials for democracy in either country. What I am interested
in seeing are the similarities and differences in each constitution and how
their particularities might or might not work to establish a democratic state.
