The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
What I mean is that the "revolutions" that the Western elites were so happy about have not delivered any substantial improvements for the people of the respective countries: neither economically nor politically nor in terms of civil liberties.
A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world," President George W. Bush said in his inaugural address. "The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world," Mr Bush told the gathering.
It may have impressed some naive believers in self-sufficiency of freedom as we know it. Unfortunately, people, who happened to be born somewhere else, can tell us a different story. For instance, between February and October 1917, Russia was one of the most democratic nations in the world. The Weimar Republic in Germany (1919-1933) had a very democratic constitution. We know how it all ended. Actually, Mr Lukashenko is the first democratically elected President of Belarus, and still has strong support there. And Mr Putin, who recently got on our watch list for extending presidential powers, is also seen as the best and only choice by the majority of the Russians.
What on Earth do they think? Why do they show so little appreciation for freedom? My guess is that people, who struggle to make ends meet, hardly feel free under the most democratic rule in the world. Viable democracy can only be built on stable economic ground. Until people have means to take care of themselves, they will trade their freedom for guaranteed income to meet their basic needs. It took the Marshall Plan to save Western Europe from becoming red.
Frankly speaking, "expansion of freedom" sounds a bit scary. Does it mean that we see it as our way to peace? I doubt that, say, removing Mr Lukashenko from power - even without dropping bombs on Minsk - would be widely welcome in Belarus, unless it improved the economic situation for most of the people there. If we want to help, our policy should rather stimulate economic development and make transition to market less painful. There are a number of ways to do that. Former Soviet republics need investment capital and new technologies to modernize their production capacities and become competitive on world markets. Privatization is a necessary component of this process. Growing unemployment makes people and leaders there look at small businesses more favorably. Let us help them with tailored programs of economic development, credits, trade agreements and training. People less dependent on the government economically, will be less willing to accept tyranny. Sure, this kind of approach is unlikely to make news headlines. So, what do we really want?
Sorry for the long response.
by Frank Schnittger - May 31
by Oui - May 30 22 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 23 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 27 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 5 22 comments
by Oui - May 13 66 comments
by Oui - Jun 21 comment
by Oui - Jun 17 comments
by Oui - May 3128 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 31
by Oui - May 3022 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 273 comments
by Oui - May 2726 comments
by Oui - May 24
by Frank Schnittger - May 233 comments
by Oui - May 1366 comments
by Oui - May 910 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 522 comments
by Oui - May 450 comments
by Oui - May 312 comments
by Oui - Apr 30273 comments
by Oui - Apr 2647 comments
by Oui - Apr 889 comments
by Oui - Mar 19144 comments