Assumptions Part 2

Assumption #3: Democracy is good, monarchy is bad.

Shame of me for having this assumption in the first place. Mrs. Mirkow, dear Mrs. Mirkow, my 11th and 12th grade history teacher first lesson in class - I remember it like it was yesterday - instructed us to throw out all our western-centric ideas that go as follows: we are in a democracy, it works well for us, so others should follow us so they can become better.

However, over my past 3 years of Poli Sci schooling at UNC and Duke, I've had the idea that democracy is the be all and end all crammed down my throat. I've learned much about how a vibrant and active democracy it is supposed to promote peace, free trade, more sustainable & equitable development, less hunger and many other desirable traits such as have a representative government.

Two things have given me pause over the last few years however. First, that some things about democracy just plain suck. By this and I'm sure many of you feel the same way, among other things, the campaigns and media coverage thereof are ridiculous, often about style over substance, are sensationalist and rarely narrow their focus on the real nuts and bolts issues of what's important to a country. The incumbency rate is unbelievably high and politics - in America at least - seems to be more about how much money you have, who you know (and how much money THEY have) then about merit or vision. I've heard that people are predicting the 2008 presidential campaign to be the first campaign where candidates combined spend over $1 billion on expenses to win the White House. Well, at least Rupert Murdoch is happy.

Once in office, it doesn't seem to get much better. The mountains of bureaucratic-inertia are often stifling and what gets done isn't always a whole lot better than doing nothing. While The Daily Show does a fantastic job of finding and exaggerating every single ridiculous debate, rider amendment and pork-barrel spending to make it seem like this is ALL they do, it definitely seems to happen way to much as it should considering how great democracy is supposed to be.

Don't even get me started with lobbyists.

Secondly, democracy seems like it needs to much more that a system or series of
elections or new story but rather a culture and way of life. More importantly, for
democracy to work, the society that suits it. By this I mean it must have an independent and free press to be able to verify and hold leaders accountable as well as inform the public about what is going on. There must be a thriving civil society with businesses, community groups, NGOS and other interests groups so citizens can come together to lobby for their rights. There must be stable and multiple political parties so that individuals have viable alternatives to choose from if one party doesn't carry through on its promises. The democratic system must be designed in a way that suits the country's demographics. Finally, the people in the nation must at a state where they can participate. Yes, that means willing. But this also means not hungry and impoverished, with a job, educated, and not fearful for their lives because of violent conflict or insecurity.

As the French would say, "c'est pas evident" - its not easy/simple. It is these sorts of democratic enablers that Iraq lacked and is the reason that the idea of imposing democracy with the sword made and stills makes absolutely no sense. Don't get me wrong though, I think democracy is a fantastic tool. However, I do think it is one that a country must be ready to use. It is at this point that I find myself between two conflicting quotations - first, that democracy merely is "tyranny of the majority." And second, that democracy is "the worst system except for all the others."

I certainly believe that if given the choice between any given country to be either a democracy or at the whim of a random autocrat, I would certainly choose the former. However, Morocco, in particular, isn't faced with this choice.Instead, Morocco is a "democratic, social and constitutional Monarchy."

The first things one of my colleagues noted is that democratic monarchy is about as oxymoronic as it gets. In spite of this, Mohammed VI, the King, has made considerable reforms during his tenure. Provding more political and social freedoms, rewriting Morocco's antiquated family code to give women unprecedented legal rights in the Arab world and focus on poverty alleviation and housing as two of his major policies.

Hearing about this brings "benevolent dictator" to mind, which many see as the ideal form of government, if you can assume he (or her...ok he..jk) will remain this way and is motivated to be efficient in being benevolent. But it is this that gives me pause. In a democracy, there are tangible incentives for doing good, for improving the lives of your citizens: your job. If you don't produce results, you get the boot. But for dictators, unless you really terrorize your people so that they revolt against you, all you really have to do to keep your job is keep your inner circle content.

Yet, in applying my democratic education to Morocco, I've found my initial assumption - that Morocco would be better off right now with a full democracy (ie no King or a king like the UK has one) by some of the conversations I've had. Instead, it seems that what he's doing - promoting economic and social development while engaging in the process of democratization gradually and still remaining a unifying force is a pretty good step.... for the mean time. According to many I've talked to Morocco is not ready for full democracy with, for instance almost 1/2 of the population illiterate and many still in poverty and with voter education and party development still lacking.

However, is not clear cut. When South Africa held elections in 1995, it was still a very poor country. Yet, it was privvy to a unique period of unity behind Mandela that Morocco has not experienced. That doesn't mean that SA doesn't face huge democratic challenges today. SA, on the other hand, also did not have the option of a gradual transition from benevolent dictator to democracy. It is possible that with a full democracy here, the government would not be stable enough to do the hard work that must be done. The NGO I'm working with here, NDI, and many others NGOs are working with political parties, young leaders and the electorate to promote a more effective democracy. One thing I want to learn more about - and eventually write my thesis on (I think.....uggh I don't even want to start to think about my thesis) is democratic transition, how you cross the point of no return from autocracy to democracy.

For the moment, however, the King seems to be on the right track. He is providing more and more press, civil society and democratic freedoms while pushing for social justice. I only hope he continues his current reform and trend towards increased democratization and social development and, eventually, has the humility to ease gently out of the spotlight and let a thriving democracy, with all the benefits, and, yes, shortcomings, take center stage.

Unsurprisingly, it seems Mrs. Mirkow was right...she has always been there watching over me...