Posts
It seems that Mr. Gaddafi's chances of being ousted have declined a bit since I last looked. I suspect that the no fly zone will be insufficient to oust him. If I am right about this, then he will either stay in power until his health fails him or we will see more extensive foreign intervention against him. In the event that he is replaced, a democratic result will require an extensive occupation of the country. All this will be extremely expensive.
At http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/ they argue that non-violent civil resistance is more likely to result in a transition to democratic governance than the alternatives. The theoretical explanation is that with armed rebellion, the opposition is easier to identify. They will be a small, committed minority. They will need to be willing to commit violence. The ruthlessness necessary to violently overthrow the government will not lend the movement toward voluntarily relinquishing control in the face of electoral defeat. That is even in the less likely event that they succeed, they are much less likely to implement democracy.
Foreign intervention has a well documented history of failure in producing democratic results. It is for this reason that I have hesitated to support the no fly zone over Libya. First it is not certain that it will save lives once all the dust has settled. It may well be that staying out of the conflict would have discouraged the armed rebellion. While it is unfortunate that Gaddafi would likely remain in power, since his violent suppression of his own people would be allowed to stand, the alternative is likely to be even worse. An armed conflict that involves many casualties followed by an even more brutal suppression, since the Libyan government is likely to see an increase in violence to be necessary in order to preserve the status quo.
Furthermore, even were foreign intervention to succeed in toppling Mr. Gaddafi, it is uncertain whether or not a democratic regime would follow. In addition to this we seem to be going further than the Arab League had in mind. This runs the risk of being seen as an action taken by Western powers against a Muslim country and even Islam itself.
As an alternative to this I suggest that we should encourage non violent civil disobedience against undemocratic regimes. By "we" I mean that individuals should get involved in doing this, not the government.
The government should consider more liberal immigration policies and encourage other countries to follow suit.
No comments:
Post a Comment