Promoting Democracy and Human Rights

Americans have complex attitudes about the idea of promoting democracy. A majority thinks that promoting democracy should be a goal of US foreign policy. However there is a reluctance to make democracy promotion a central theme in US foreign policy and an opposition to using military force or the threat of military force to that end. At the same time Americans do feel a moral obligation to promote democracy and there is substantial support for cooperative methods for promoting democracy and for working through the United Nations. A modest majority favors promoting democracy in friendly authoritarian countries even if it may lead to unfriendly governments; large majorities do favor putting diplomatic and public pressure on governments to respect human rights.

In general, a majority thinks that promoting democracy should be a goal of US foreign policy, but not a top priority. For several decades the Chicago Council has asked how important the goal of "helping to being a democratic form of government to other nations" should be for US foreign policy. A large majority-between 70 and 80%--have consistently said that it is important. Most recently in July 2006 74% said it was important. However the number saying that it is "very important" has never been more than one in three and most recently was only 17%.[1]

Others have found similar results. A February 2005 Gallup poll using a similar scale found 70% saying that "building democracy in other nations" is an important foreign policy goal, with only 31% saying it is very important.[2] Pew has asked how high a priority "promoting democracy in other nations" should be for the US among possible long-range foreign policy goals. In October 2005 78% said that it should have some priority, but only 24% said that it should have top priority. This has changed little since July 2004.[3] A September 2006 Public Agenda poll asked how important "actively creating democracies in other countries" should be to foreign policy, and found 69% saying it should be important, with just 24% saying it should be very important.[4]

Other foreign policy goals are given a higher priority. In the case of the Chicago Council and Pew polls mentioned above, promoting democracy is relatively low on the list of priorities compared to other goals. When asked to compare promoting democracy with protecting US security as a primary goal of US foreign policy, promoting democracy is given a back seat. The February 2007 Third Way survey asked two questions on this issue. Asked whether the main purpose of American foreign policy should be "protecting the security of the US and our allies," "promoting freedom and democracy," or "advancing our economic interest," two-thirds (66%) chose protecting security. Only 21% opted for promoting freedom and democracy, while just 9% chose economic interests.[5] Posing the question a different way yielded nearly the same results. Given two statements, 68% said they agreed more that the "main goal of US foreign policy should be to protect American security, whether it spreads our ideals or not," as opposed to the 27% who said the main goal "should be to spread our ideals, including freedom and democracy."[6]

Americans appear to want to take a fairly pragmatic approach to promoting democracy, not making it a fixed rule that the US will always promote democracy in every situation. Offered two positions in the September 2005 PIPA-Chicago Council poll, only 38% said that "As a rule, US foreign policy should encourage countries to be democratic." Fifty-four percent preferred the position that "As a rule, US foreign policy should pursue US interests, which sometimes means promoting democracy and sometimes means supporting non-democratic governments."[7]

Americans appear to have resisted the Bush administration's proposal to make promotion of democracy a central role for the US as expressed in the 2005 State of the Union address. Shortly after the address a February 2005 AP/Ipsos poll found that 53% said it "should not be in the role of the United States to promote the establishment of democratic governments in other countries," while just 45% said it should.[8]

In general questions that pose the option of the US, by itself, establishing democracy in other nations elicit relatively weak support. The German Marshall Fund asked in June 2006 whether "it should be the role of the United States to help establish democracy in other countries": just 45% said that it should while 48% felt it should not. This is slightly less supportive than the previous year, when GMF found 51% believing the US should have this role.[9]

Americans do not support using military force for promoting democracy. Asked simply in the September 2005 PIPA-Chicago Council poll whether they favored or opposed using military force to overthrow a dictator, only 35% were in favor while 55% were opposed. Only 27% said that "using military force to overthrow a dictator" "does more good than harm," while a 58% majority says this "does more harm than good."[10] The June 2006 GMF poll also found a majority 56% rejecting "sending military forces to remove authoritarian regimes" as a method to help democracy (only 34% would support it).[10a]

Americans overwhelming accept the premise that democracy cannot be successfully instituted by force. Eight-three percent in a February 2007 Third Way poll agreed with the statement "The US cannot impose democracy by force on another country." Just 15% disagreed.[11]

Interestingly, promoting democracy through the threat of force is even more emphatically rejected. In the PIPA-Chicago Council September 2005 poll, a majority of 66% said that "warning a government that the US might intervene military if it does not carry out democratic reforms" does more harm than good, compared to 58% who said that "using military force to overthrow a dictator" does more harm than good. When asked to think about making such threats against to specific countries support is even lower: 73-76% rejected doing so for each country named (Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia, China, and Burma, also called Myanmar).[12]

Americans also show a reluctance to apply pressure on countries to become more democratic. In the September 2005 PIPA-Chicago Council poll only 44% favored "withholding development aid from a government that is not democratic and is not moving toward becoming more democratic."[12a]

Polling conducted within the past few years clearly indicates a lack of majority support for placing greater pressure on countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt, to become more democratic. Asked in the September 2005 PIPA-Chicago Council poll specifically about putting "greater pressure on countries in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia and Egypt to become more democratic," 51% said the US should not do this, while 39% said that it should. The Chicago Council has asked this question a number of times since November 2003, no more than 41% have supported this policy, while majorities of 51-57% have been opposed. [13]

Consistent with the uneasiness about getting involved in the internal affairs of a country the June 2006 GMF poll found a plurality of 44% rejecting "supporting political dissidents" (39% would support it).[14]

Response to Arguments

Americans have complex and subtle responses to questions that implicitly and explicitly present arguments about democracy promotions.

Americans have a wary response to arguments in favor of democracy promotion based on American exceptionalism. The February 2007 Third Way poll offered two arguments. Only 36% chose "American is an exceptional nation with superior political institutions and ideals and a unique destiny to shape the world" while 58% agreed that "It is a dangerous illusion to believe America is superior to other nations; we should not be attempting to reshape other nations in light of our values."[15]

When the normative principle of non-intervention in a country's internal affairs is elicited, support for democracy promotion is especially low and has been drifting even lower in recent years-perhaps in response to the frustrations of Iraq. CBS/NYT have asked "Should the United States try to change a dictatorship to a democracy where it can, or should the United States stay out of other countries' affairs?" Most recently in March 2007 only 15% favored intervention, while 69% said the US should stay out. Opposition to intervention has grown since April 2003 when 48% took this position.[16]

Pragmatic arguments that it is not feasible to promote democracy from the outside are quite effective. In a September 2006 Public Agenda poll, nearly two-thirds (64%) felt that democracy is "something that countries only come to on their own when they're ready for it" as opposed to the 31% who agreed that "The US can help other countries become democracies."[17]

Americans are wary of sweeping visions that portray the movement toward democracy is inexorable and desired by all people. A clear majority (64%) disagreed with the statement that "eventually, nearly all countries will become democracies," while just 28% agrees (PIPA-Chicago Council September 2005).[18] In the same poll, while 78% said that democracy is the best form of government only 50% said that it is the best for all countries while 43% disagreed. Given two statements in a February 2007 Third Way poll, only 40% agreed that "People all over the world share the desire to live in freedom and govern themselves democratically," while a majority of respondents (55%) agreed that "People in some countries want freedom and democracy more than people in other countries."[19]

Despite the efforts of the Bush administration, Americans are not widely convinced that expanding the number of democracies will have wide ranging positive effects. Americans have doubts on whether democracy makes the world safer. The PIPA-Chicago Council poll presented a number of these arguments. Presented two statements only 26% chose the one that said "When there are more democracies the world is a safer place." Instead 68% chose the statement that "Democracy may make life better within a country, but it does not make the world a safer place."[20]

The case that democracy undermines support for terrorism did a bit better but was not persuasive to a majority. Forty-five percent concurred that, "democracies better serve the needs of their people and thus people in democracies are less frustrated and less likely to support terrorist groups." Overall 46% opted instead for the view that "people support terrorist groups because of their ideological convictions, and having a democratic government is not going to change that."[21]

The popular view among political scientists that democracies are unlikely to go to war with each other does not have a wide public following. A plurality (49%) said democracies are just as likely to go to war with each other as are other types of government, compared to 46% who said democracies are less likely to go to war with each other than other types of government.[22]

The one claim that did get modest majority support (52%) was that democracies are more stable and less likely to experience civil war than non-democracies. [23]

Americans also remain unconvinced that increasingly democratic countries will become more accepting of US policies. Only 42% said that they believe that the likelihood of agreement with US policies increases when countries become more democratic (PIPA-Chicago Council September 2005).[24]

At the same time Americans do express some sense of moral obligation to promote democracy. When asked in a November 2003 Gallup poll, 56% believed that the United States has Ў°a responsibility to help other countries rid themselves of dictators and become democracies.Ў± Thirty-eight percent held the opposite view.[25]

Furthermore, when placed in this moral context nearly half respond positively to an argument that calls for the readiness to use military force. A February 2007 Third Way poll offered the statement Ў°The US has a moral obligation to help free other peoples from tyranny and to help create new democracies, even if that means using military force.Ў± Forty-eight percent agreed with the statement (17% strongly, 31% somewhat), while 50 percent disagreed (22% strongly, 28% somewhat).[26]

⇐ Предыдущая6789101112131415Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: