This was going to be a fairly neutral knowledge garden about international affairs. But in writing it, I found my heart lay more in using what little I know of politics and technology to help topple autocracies and advance liberal democracy.
Given the centrality of my political beliefs to this project, I shall be upfront about them.
Before anything, I’m a liberal democrat. I believe in human rights, the rule of law, and the separation of powers that this requires. Law should be formulated by either the people directly or by their elected representatives, and applied equally to all. The judiciary should be independent and able to review the constitutionality of laws. The executive should be accountable to the legislature, and the legislature to the people.
From where I stand, Francis Fukuyama’s often mocked “end of history” thesis is, actually, quite correct: There is no “alternative” political system that can remotely hold a candle to liberal democracy. Other political philosophies postulate theoretical utopias, select one group over another, or even seek to create “new” humans in the fraught attempt to create a perfectly harmonious society. Liberal democracy is unique in that it is based on the appreciation that humans will always have different opinions, interests, and values - and that these will always and inevitably clash. It deals with this reality not by trying to eliminate it, but by channeling natural human disagreement into a peaceful and productive exchange of ideas.
In our political discourse, I care about decency. I believe in civility, respect, and the presumption of good faith. We should be able to disagree without being disagreeable and argue against one another’s ideas without resorting to personal attacks. We should listen to each other and extend the benefit of the doubt, no matter how much we disagree. And we should change our minds when presented with new evidence or arguments. I believe it’s important to have a sense of humour about ourselves and our beliefs, and that we should be able to laugh at ourselves from time to time.
Having said that, these values apply only if they are reciprocated. If we find the other side lacking in decency, civility, or respect, we should recognize that this alters the terms of engagement. If the other side is not arguing in good faith, we are under no obligation to pretend they are. If the other side is not listening to us, we are under no obligation to listen to them. If the other side uses ad hominem attacks, issues threats, or engages in violence, we are under no obligation to turn the other cheek. We shouldn’t cower from a fight and must stand up to bullies and liars.
In promoting liberal democracy and human rights, I am a universalist. I believe that all humans are as individuals equal in dignity and rights, and that these rights are universal and inalienable.
In the struggle against autocracy, the question of violence inevitably comes up. So here’s my general stance: I think liberal democracy can and should be defended using, if necessary, military force. Democracies should assist one another in their right to self-defence under international law. Human rights can additionally be defended in peace enforcement missions authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. However, to promote liberal democracy beyond already democratic states, military force is the wrong tool and launching aggressive wars is a war crime.
The weapon we should be focusing on to topple autocracies is nonviolent resistance as described by Gene Sharp. I believe nonviolent resistance is the more effective way to bring about political change. It is more likely to succeed than violent tactics, because violence is almost by definition an autocracy’s strong point. To attack an autocracy with violence is to play to its strengths. Nonviolent resistance, on the other hand, attacks a regime’s weaknesses by undermining its legitimacy, dividing its supporters, and increasing the cost of associating with it. An important aim is to get a regime’s security forces to defect and its foreign backers to withdraw their support.
Autocracies thrive on an imbalance of power between the state and society. By fostering powerful civil society institutions apart from the state, nonviolent resistance seeks to redress this imbalance. It is a way for the people to take back their power from the state and to hold the state accountable to them.
Sharp’s “From Dictatorship to Democracy” is available online for free. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in nonviolent resistance. It is a practical guide to toppling autocracies, and it is based on empirical research. It is not a utopian or idealistic treatise, but a pragmatic and realistic one.
Kind regards, Marc Chéhab