Will more democratically elected governments in the world lead to less terrorism?

No

1 of 28

by Robert C. Sage

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

There is no proven, direct correlation between the incidence of so-called "democracies" and a lessening of non-governmental terrorism. Unfortunately, governmental terrorism does exist and it tends to be worse under the more autocratic systems, but that is a different question altogether. In fact, young democracies probably experience more unrest because the freedoms are recently won and societal standards for self-expression are still underdeveloped. In all political systems, there are "crazies" and people who abuse the liberties of others. Terrorists have developed under all types of political systems, however democracies tend to be more accepting of diversity and people with terrorist bents can take advantage of that. A terrorist is someone who uses terror to accomplish his goals.

On the other hand, democracies tend to encourage reasonable resolutions to difficult social and political issues. In some cases, accepting radically different opinions could enable proto-terrorists to get the hostility and frustration out of their systems non-violently. However, to credibly debate the implied proposition that democracy prevents terrorism, the terms "democracy" and "terrorists" need some clarification. In fact, there is no such thing as a truly democratic country, because it would require that all citizens be involved in all decisions. Meanwhile, a terrorist is someone who uses terror to accomplish goals. Terrorists can be individuals, insurgent groups or even governments.

Terroris m exists under all political systems. Where the government actively terrorizes its citizens, there may be higher levels of terrorism as a reaction. However, there are many relatively undemocratic countries that have low incidences of individual and group terrorism. Thus, the implied proposition that democracy leads to less terrorism is not supported by empirical data. It is wishful thinking. Most people would like to believe that their form of government is better than others, but it would be very difficult to prove that democracy reduces terrorism, since there are so many forms of terrorism and of democracy.

The implied proposition seems to be based largely on self-righteousness, self-pride and ethnocentrism. In fact, it is somewhat immaterial whether the implied proposition is true or not, unless you believe that America has the right and responsibility to promote, institute and enforce the practice of democracy in other countries according to our definitions. This idea seems to have been voiced in order to support American interventionism for democracy by any means necessary, including pre-emptive military strikes.

George W. Bush has justified his invasion and occupation of Iran and Afghanistan under the premise that he was supporting the promotion of democracy and thereby reducing the risk of terrorist safe havens. The neo-cons continue to claim that Iraq is better off under American imposed democracy, since the invasion of March, 2003. However, most Iraqis disagree. It is estimated that over a million Iraqis have been killed, between 4 and 5 million have become refugees domestically or abroad and additional millions of Iraqis have been injured, due to the rampant violence ushered in by the American occupation forces. The current government of Iraq is claimed to be more democratic than the former Saddam Hussein Baathist regime, Iraqi society has been disintegrating, due to the terror of sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing.
Saddam was no angel, but he did keep tight control over indiscriminate violence and terrorism between the various sectors of Iraqi society.

Ultimately, every country has a right to its own national sovereignty, democracy or not. The principle of self-determination means that no country has a monopoly on democracy or the form that it takes. Of course, it makes sense for America to promote the development of democratic traditions through economic assistance and development, social and cultural interchanges instead of military domination. The fact that America is willing to spend many more billions on foreign wars of domination that terrorize many civilians than on economic development, again makes a statement about even established democracies taking actions that result in terrorism of millions of people in far off lands. That appears to contradict and disprove the basic premise of this article's title/question.

Learn more about this author, Robert C. Sage.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.