EXPORTING DEMOCRACY, IMPORTING DOUBT

The idea that freedom and democracy can be exported worldwide is an ancient dream. The Athenian democrats, the French revolutionaries, and the Russian Bolsheviks, to name just a few, were convinced that their political system was valid enough to be extended to all peoples. But even the path to freedom is not paved with rose petals: enthusiasm often mixes with fanaticism; idealism must contend with the harsh laws of realpolitik.

The idea of exporting Western democracy to the world has been one of the greatest geopolitical scams of our time. From Afghanistan to Iraq, via Libya and Syria (and even the pretext for recent American interventions in Venezuela and Iran), the result has always been the same: chaos, civil wars, terrorism, and a political involution that has made these countries even more unstable than before.

Historical Precedents

The export of democracy is a topic studied by many political scientists and historians from the postwar period to the present. The cumulative human and economic losses in Iraq and Afghanistan were incalculable, bringing even more tragic situations to these already war-torn lands. Following the Gulf Wars, Iraq reached pre-industrial economic levels, while Afghanistan remains ruled by the Taliban following failed Western military investments.

What does US democracy export: well-being or destruction?

The United States, a self-proclaimed beacon of democracy, has fervently exported American-style democracy to promote its expansion abroad and maintain US hegemony, causing upheaval and instability around the world.

This cultural colonization and institutional transformation of other nations and peoples under the banner of exporting democracy serves not only as a means of asserting hegemony, but also as a significant expression of the theological-political mission conferred by American exceptionalism. Since its founding, the United States has employed tactics such as territorial expansion, military intervention, and democratic transplantation to establish itself as a global hegemonic power.
Using military, economic, political, diplomatic, cultural, and propaganda strategies, the United States has made economic assistance conditional on democratic reforms, increasing aid to countries that align and imposing economic sanctions on those that do not.

To achieve this, the United States has not hesitated to resort to double standards, violence, and deception, severely damaging its image and credibility.

Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam

After Iraq, what remains possible? The Iraq war has claimed an unknown but growing number of victims on the ground, has further turbulent international relations, and has forced the West to abandon the leading role among developing countries it had earned thanks to its material and cultural resources. The Iraq war has had another damaging effect: it has demonstrated to the world's peoples that the West has not freed itself from the habits of old colonialism and new imperialism, aggravated by the use of the noble values of freedom and democracy as a rhetorical screen behind which to conceal the interests of narrowly controlled elites. Within the West, this has produced a dramatic rift between democratic governments and, at the same time, between governments and their respective populations.

Given that the West possesses the resources and the will to export democracy, the Iraq adventure is destined to have a decisive impact on future agendas. A long list of factors explains why democratizing Iraq and Afghanistan has proven much more difficult than democratizing Germany,Italy, and Japan.

The fact is that not all authoritarian regimes are equally opposed by the population and can enjoy widespread support. Wanting to militarily impose democracy - literally, people's power - against the will of the people is foolish from the outset. It also requires the active involvement of endemic forces eager to establish a democratic regime and the right individuals to lead it. Certainly, it is easy to reintroduce democracy, but difficult to introduce it: in countries like Italy and Germany, the existence of democratic institutions, prior to the advent of dictatorships, already constituted a model and had allowed the survival of clandestine parties and groups both inside and outside the country, which took on the task of leading their countries from the old to the new regime. In countries that have never experienced democracy, its implementation is nearly impossible.

A war of aggression is a means that contradicts its end and explains why the Iraqi people, rather than accept a regime imposed by the occupation forces, have waged strenuous resistance. The damage has extended far beyond Iraq. Just as the Vietnam War discredited Western leadership and, for over a decade, pushed many developing countries and national liberation movements toward political systems antagonistic to those of liberal democracies, the Iraq war has created an opposition to Western foreign policy that will have unpredictable consequences.

Decline of Democracies

The wave of democratization that began in 1989 came to an abrupt halt after 2003 (the Iraq war), and for the first time since 1990, the number of democracies has decreased rather than increased. It will take a long time and considerable patience for democratic countries to regain the international authority that was severely eroded by George W. Bush and Tony Blair. It would be a mistake, however, to believe that the civil wars in Iraq and Afghanistan signal the immaturity of some populations or that the international context cannot contribute to its spread and consolidation.

The opportunity for self-determination can be exported, while the specific form of democratic government can only be imported; that is, democratic government must be formed from an adequate endogenous political fabric. This rules out the possibility of exporting democracy militarily. Historical experience confirms that successful exports of democracy have relied on persuasion, incentives, and international collaboration.

In this case, there is no dilemma regarding the choice between means and ends: the goal of democracy is much more easily achieved when consistent means are adopted, while external conflict strengthens authoritarian regimes. An international system based on peace and cooperation makes life difficult for despots and encourages the internal opposition necessary for effective political liberalization.

The carrot has a huge advantage over the stick: it does not cause harm or prejudice for which democracies must take responsibility. No collateral damage occurs in attempting to persuade other countries to become democratic. In an age where there is no certainty that violent means will achieve desirable goals, it is wise to refrain from actions that undermine the democratic cause.

Considerations
The specific form of democratic government must be created from an appropriate endogenous political framework. This not only highlights the impossibility of exporting democracy militarily, but also demonstrates the incoherence of the concept itself. Successful diffusion of democracy has occurred through persuasion, incentives, and international collaboration.

There is no dilemma regarding the choice between means and ends: the goal of democracy is achieved only when coherent means are adopted. For this reason, it is meaningless to assert that a military attempt to export democracy (even assuming that democracy is the true goal and not a mere cover for private gain) is legal or legitimate. Chapters VI-VIII of the United Nations Charter definitively exclude the possibility of waging war (whether to establish democracy or for other reasons) without a Security Council resolution. Furthermore, no valid concept of legitimacy can be invoked to justify the unilateral use of violence.

The vocabulary of legitimacy is abused to justify preventive military actions, resulting in the undermining of international legality and democratic governance. The word "democracy," associated with unilateral regime change actions, is often used to cloak violence (whether military or symbolic) with an aura of self-legitimization. The shadow of terrorism is raised in an attempt to reshape the norms governing international power and the use of force.

Such challenges to international legal norms regarding war and military intervention aim to reshape international norms and establish unilateral norms/laws. The peaceful spread of democracy suggests the appropriate path both to ensure international legality and to define solid criteria of international legitimacy.

Conclusion
Exporting democracy through weapons proves to be a way to undermine legality both domestically and internationally. Recent cases of unilateral recourse to war under the pretext of international security and pacification have not solved any problems but have worsened already critical situations.
The violent means of war do not exclusively target despots, but inevitably also end up affecting the citizens who supposedly benefit from a democratic regime. This leads to a perverse situation worthy of George Orwell's paradox: war is used to promote peace, violence is administered to achieve democracy.

The path is cooperation because conflicts end up strengthening authoritarian regimes, while an international system based on peace and collaboration makes life difficult for dictators and encourages the internal opposition necessary for effective political democratization.

Exporting democracy, contrary to its most ardent supporters, causes democracy to be seen as an export product, as something that comes from outside and adapts neither to the beliefs nor the needs of the population. Instead, it is necessary to make citizens feel like an active participant in a broader process. A true democratic project is not oriented solely towards institutional reform: it is primarily concerned with popular participation and the protection of rights. It is designed to progressively overcome the conditions of political, social, and economic marginalization that prevent people from being architects of their own laws.

In this context, a particularly important role must be attributed, in the critical examination of international and therefore military dynamics, to the figure of the intellectual who, strong in his or her cultural background, has the task of challenging the dominant narratives promoted by governments or political elites, especially when it comes to issues such as wars, military interventions, or international relations, with the aim of offering a critical perspective capable of promoting peace, cooperation, and global justice.

It is worth remembering what John Steinbeck, Nobel Prize winner for literature in 1962, said: “Telling people what to do is much easier than teaching them how to do it. That is why democracy cannot be imposed by decree. Democracy is the end product of a long period of learning, which in turn usually proceeds by trial and error. Democracy cannot be handed over; it must be willed and then learned just as a child learns to read. All we can do to help them is give them time to build their nation.”