‘India’s role in Burma was below expectations’

Q&A: Prof Larry Diamond wants India to be politically more proactive and spread democracy far and wide

Larry Diamond is Professor of Political Science and Sociology at Stanford University, and coordinates the Democracy Program of the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law. Diamond was invited by Condoleezza Rice to be an advisor to Coalition Provisional Authority on Iraq to advice on ways to bring democracy in the distressed country. He spoke to Sayandeb Chowdhury about Iraq, India’s neighbourhood and why India must play a much bigger role in exporting it’s democratic ethic than it is doing now. 

You have a rare view of the Iraq War and its failures, in your capacity as an academic as well as an advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority on Iraq. What do you think went wrong?
The first mistake was going to war itself when there was no imminent threat to national security and no international consensus. And a faulty war was followed by bad management, abrupt disbanding of the army, needless efforts at total de-Bathification and an impression that it was an Anglo-American conquest. The condition was just right for insurgency.

You opposed the war but then supported the democratisation process. Aren’t they linked?
Yes, I did oppose the war but once it was over I felt a system had to be put in place. Once an egg is broken, you must do something; you cannot leave it like that.

Do you think Islam is incompatible with democracy? 
I can’t say that. There are about 43 majority Muslim countries of which 16 are in the Arab Middle East. Of the 16 not one is a democracy. But elsewhere, in Africa and Asia, there are about seven Islamic democracies, including big ones like Indonesia and Turkey.

In fact, if Islam is the religion of peace, then it cannot be intrinsically incompatible with democracy. It is about how the political establishment wants to use its influence. For that matter, every religion has interpretations that go against the norms of democracy and an equal number that go for it. It depends on how they are interpreted politically.

How would you explain the democratic deficiency amongst India’s neighbours?
You can take Sri Lanka as an exception but yes, it’s an embattled democracy. Otherwise it is a sorry state of affairs. Much of the problem has to do with the beginning of each of them as a State.

India was greatly advantaged in having as its foundation the Indian National Congress and people like Nehru, his companions and Gandhi, men with vision and decades of democratic practice. In Pakistan, the Muslim League, had none of it, except Jinnah, who died early. Moreover, military intervention is a kiss of death for a democracy.

Once you allow the military in, it’s difficult to get rid of them. Even otherwise in Pakistan, for example the Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto regime was not a model of democracy. Like Pakistan, Bangladesh was born out of strife and trauma. That also contributed to weak and fragile protocol institutions and machinery.

You have argued for India’s intervention to safeguard democratic processes.
Not intervention but a larger engagement. And that has nothing to do with any alignment with any country. I can understand that there are a lot of misgivings here about foreign policy choices but I am not saying that India must align with a country; at least geopolitically.

Rather, India must align with a cause like democracy. I can understand that India feels nervous about taking up a bigger role in the internal issues of its immediate neighbours, like Pakistan and Bangladesh. But it should engage with the others.

What about China’s role?
Critical. China must play the role of, as someone said, an ‘equal responsible stake holder’ in global affairs. National security is primary for every country. But it does not mean that one cannot play a more responsible role. China will be as much affected by regional instability and border skirmish as any other country. But is it being responsible? No. Take the Burma example.

And here I must say that India’s role was not fitting with the expectation. India needs natural resources. But should that always come in the way when a blatantly ruthless and corrupt junta regime in Burma is abusing its people and institutions? The US-like hypocrisy of turning a blind eye to the worst practices will not go down well now, in a changed world.

What role can India play?
India can leverage its lessons in running a successful democracy with other countries. It can invite all stake holders for dialogue, create institutions, learn and let others learn from its experience, its federal structure, its panchayat system, its popular participation. I am taking about exporting democracy as a soft power. If India can export its cinema, why not its democracy?

Have we heard the last word on democracy or are there more forms to evolve?
It’s a vital question. The following are critical to democracy: regular, free and fair elections, adult franchise cutting across divides, participation of two or more political parties, an independent framework to supervise elections and free judiciary and press. Anything less than that or any experiment without them is a fraud. But democracy is also evolving fast trying to keep up with the technology race.