The “Ping-pong Theory” of Democratic (Un)Consolidation

The time I’ve spent as a student and scholar of democratization is more than a decade now. Part of my effort was to see whether the Latin American experiences on the long and arduous path to democratization could be relevant for Turkey or the Mid East.

Looking at the transformation of civil-military relations in Latin America, I was taken aback by how the civilian regimes that took over handled this delicate matter. Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) was achieved in most of these countries. Militaries retreated back to their professional boundaries, and political space was left to the civilians. In Chile, Argentina and Peru, Truth and Reconciliation Commissions were established in order to uncover the heinous crimes committed under military rules. The days of impunity were over. Institutions to ensure the transparency and accountability of the military were set in place.

However, the civilian governments also granted comprehensive amnesties to the perpetrators. It was this part that I had harder time to comprehend…

In most cases, leftist governments gained electoral victory after the military regimes ran out of steam. They were treated brutally during the authoritarian era. Thanks to the unfettered support from the US during the Cold War, military regimes of Latin America unleashed vicious campaigns over these ‘commies’.

General Pinochet of Chile was notorious with his Caravans of Death. These were military helicopters that airlifted leftist dissidents and conveniently dropped them off over the Pacific Ocean. The last three Presidents of Brazil (Dilma, Lula and Cardoso) all experienced either jail time and torture, or exile during the military rule in Brazil. The Dirty War of Argentina left over 10,000 desaparecidos.* The Argentine military caused yet another tragedy by handing over the orphaned children of the disappeared to the military families.

Despite all the torture, summary executions, displaced/disappeared individuals and forced adoptions, the civilian leaders of Latin America allowed a graceful exit for the ex-military autocrats. More importantly, they uncovered the past military crimes and brought closure to the families of the victims.

Today, I realize that this was neither a sign of weakness, nor pity. It was a superior understanding of rule of law that carefully avoided regressing into a vendetta.

Seeking revenge, making your opponents pay back, are unsurprisingly human feelings. Yet, in polarized societies that seek democratic healing, an eye-for-an-eye attitude could hardly be the harbinger of lasting peace.

-Dude, why R U showing your ID to the bomb?
+ Dunno, what should I do instead?

These are my thoughts, as I see the last Joint Chiefs of Staff in Turkey go behind bars. For some, this settles the score for the jailing of Prime Minister Erdogan. Yet, settling scores could hardly be the best path to democratic consolidation. It would’ve been more constructive, had we seen genuine signs of transparency on the side of military, which had incidentally bombed 35 civilians by accident past week!

As much as I would like to see the normalization of civil-military relations in Turkey, I doubt placing more than half the acting or retired top brass behind bars on dubious legal grounds is the way to go. Instead of resolving the military issue, this approach simultaneously leads to two important problems:

It fuels the social polarization by making the weaker party (the secularists and pro-military sectors in the Turkish case) hold onto its grudge, and sharpen its weapons, until it gets its turn. Hence the ping-pong match of settling scores and undermining democracy…

Secondly, it undermines the sense of justice in the general society. If government can bend the judiciary branch at will, how can you expect the public to uphold the rule of law and respect it as impartial?...

Democratic consolidation cannot be achieved, if anyone with the biggest stick starts to corner its opponents into submission. Yes, those who committed crimes should be punished. But this should not come at the expense of rule of law. Nor should it amount to a vendetta.

Wishing you all sound legal systems in the New Year,

The Academic Mommy in a Quandary…

* A friend from Argentina kindly asked me to amend the number of desaparecidos. Upon close monitoring from the Human Rights NGOs, the official figures amounted to more than 30,000.

Visiting the Brazilian Ambassador:

Photo: Ministry of External Relations (The Itamaraty Palace) in Brasilia, Brazil

  Today, I had a nice long visit with the Brazilian Ambassador. As usual, we covered many topics ranging from PetroBras to black labs... But my entry is not about the content of our conversation. Rather, I’d like to talk about political cultures.

  Throughout my academic career, I had the opportunity to encounter and work for some high profile individuals. At my Alma Mater, Bogazici University, for instance, I was the assistant for the then vice-rector, who got degrees from Yale and Stanford.

  When working at the University of Hartford in Connecticut, I had the chance to meet with the ex-president of Mexico, Ernesto Zedillo. We had a nice chat about my dissertation with Dr. Zedillo, who incidentally has PhD in Economics from Yale.

  My last rector in Turkey, who was recently promoted to be the head of the highest scientific research institute of the country, received his PhD from Georgia Tech. He was both the sharpest and most accessible administrator that I ever worked with.

Here is where I am trying to get at:

  When I look at the high profile people that I interact with, the ones that I communicate with utmost ease all have some education experience in the US. Therefore, it wasn't a great surprise for me when the Ambassador said he too had studied in the US. 

  I think the higher education system in the US, particularly the Liberal Arts tradition, is the best form of soft power that the US could ever achieve. It breeds a unique blend of cosmopolitan individuals, who acquire the pragmatic, laid-back, no-nonsense attitude that is emblematic of the American political culture.

Let me put this in a comparative perspective, so that the contrast would pop out more:

  In my home country, which is not much different from the other members of the developing word, protocol and hierarchy are strongly entrenched qualities in political culture. The higher up in the ranks you go, the more stiff you get. Consequently, it is really hard to have a genuinely open, productive communication with these people…

  Unfortunately, the Europeans are not immune to this stiffness virus either. Their strong adherence to bureaucracy (see the colossus they’ve created called the EU), the meandering way they talk, which involves so many subtle connotations that you need a decoder to capture them all, make it really hard to get to the nuts and bolts of an issue. 

  There has been a growing literature on the American decline since the 1980s. Yet, most of these were coming from the left-leaning IR scholars, hence were not taken too seriously by the mainstream. Recently however, even the centrist, mainstream scholars are talking about the “US decline”. (Here is a great piece by Stephen Walt of Harvard)

  Hard power (military and economy) is a whole other issue. But if it wants to maintain its soft power, the US cannot afford to lose its global edge in higher education.

My humble suggestion: 

 Get the  public university budgets off the butcher block, and stop the intimidating visa procedures for international scholars and students. What all these end up doing is undermining the precious US soft power in the long run... 

  Happy Thanksgiving!

The Liberal Arts loving Academic Mommy