Re: Legitimacy = Democracy Posted by Shadi Hamid

Thanks David for pointing us to an excellent and no doubt provocative article by Ivo Daalder and Robert Kagan. It discusses the thorny question of what is sovereignty and when and who has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of “sovereign” states.” David in his post, questions the linkage between legitimacy and democracy. I certainly understand the potential danger of using legitimacy=democracy arguments, and I have no interest in delegitimizing an organization that we should not and cannot give up on (the United Nations). However, at the most basic level, there is, as Daalder and Kagan argue, a fundamental difference in how democracies (US-UK) and autocracies (China-Russia) interpret sovereignty.

This interpretation gap all too often manifests itself in Security Council deadlocks – deadlocks which prevent the UN from taking decisive action to counter genocide and other gross human rights violations (Intuitively, it's doesn't seem particularly sensible that tiny ruling cliques of China and Russia have effective veto power over the rest of the world. When the US casts its vote on the SC, it can claim to represent the will of $300 million people. When the leaders of China/Putin's Russia cast a vote, they can claim to represent no one but themselves).

What, then, is the solution to this matter? China and Russia do not care about gross human rights violations in other states, because, within their own borders, they themselves are some of the most egregious human rights violators. So when we want to intervene on human rights issues, it almost goes without saying that China-Russia will drag their feet (as was the case in Bosnia and Kosovo). One solution is to wait for China and Russia to blossom into democracies. This, however, could take a rather long time.

The other solution, as Daalder and Kagan suggest, is to channel our efforts through multilateral organizations which are more “legitimate” than the UN, i.e. a Community/Concert of Democracies. This is not a perfect idea, but it is a better idea than maintaining the status quo.

OK, now a few words about sovereignty. Sovereignty comes not from God (divine sovereignty). Nor does it come from a “government” per se, because such a government may not have any claim to a legitimate source of authority. Rather, sovereignty comes from the people, expressed usually through an elected representative body. Normatively- speaking, autocratic governments are, by definition, illegitimate, because no one has given them the consent to rule. They rule through the application of fear and force. But while said governments are illegitimate, it would be rather absurd, not to mention impossible, to strip the world’s autocracies of their UN voting rights.

So, it makes sense then for the UN to remain the primary international actor when it comes to resolving most tensions and conflicts between states, simply because we have no choice but to deal with the rest of the world not as we wish it to be, but as it is. However, as far as humanitarian intervention (with or without military force) is concerned, it makes sense to devise effective responses to human rights violations within the context of a community of democracies that shares a common understanding of sovereignty.

Comments

[gary]

I'm all for the UN as long as it is reformed in a way that embraces democracy...

http://www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org

Until then, it lacks legitimacy.

gary

[Greg Sanders]

A Concert/Community does have the advantage that it almost certainly wouldn't have favored the Iraq War and might have had more credibility in its opposition. Although I think regional organization, when possible, should probably be the preferred venue for managing the great power politics aspects of interventions.

Also a Concert/Community wouldn't be have much help when we need Chinese/Russian/other autocratic participation in a sanctions regime or the like.

[kb]

"A Concert/Community does have the advantage that it almost certainly wouldn't have favored the Iraq War and might have had more credibility in its opposition."

You mean like the credence the US gave France and Germany's opposition to the war ?

For all this talk about 'concerts' etc , I just don't see any benefit for those of us who aren't american. The main aim of the concert approach appears to be an attempt to find another venue to rubberstamp whatever the US decides to do.

No doubt if there had been such an organisation in 2003 we'd now be reading on these websites about the flaws in it and how a new organisation ('the recital of real democracies'?) was needed.

"Putin's Russia cast a vote, they can claim to represent no one but themselves)."

No doubt Putin would respond he represents the russian people who elected him in 2004.

"China and Russia do not care about gross human rights violations in other states, because, within their own borders, they themselves are some of the most egregious human rights violators."

Whereas the US has the decency to keep its torture camps outside of its own borders. How noble.

[Greg Sanders]

kb:
Of course the Bush administration would have subsequently trashed it. The question is whether the trashing would be more or less effective than the U.N. trashing.

I think it would be quite sensible to oppose any concert formulation that would have rubber stamped the Iraq war. However, most of the nations that would potentially be part of such a concert understand that their interest is different than that of the U.S. This would provide a strong incentive to avoid voting mechanisms that the U.S., U.K., and former Soviet block countries could dominate.

All of this assumes interest by other democracies. If they aren't interested, that's another reason to drop the proposal.

[luxury watches]

I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[moncler jacket]

Even if you are the only one who wants to save your troubled marriage you can do it alone once you know what you need to do. So, relax, take a deep breath and let's get started with some things you can do to get started on saving a troubled marriage.