The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror

Rating:
Summary: It is so obvious who has not read one page of this book
Review: The number of pages read seems to be inversely proportional to the self-righteous posturing of the "readers" who act as if they care one whit about Palestinians' suffering in the world. It's unbelievable how people obviously do not read a book and then use a book review forum to rant about their alleged concern for a cause celebre of the month. Advice - actually READ the book and then comment on the substance of the text.
Anything to say about Sharansky's views of free versus fear societies? Do the Rachel Corrie loving "readers" have anything to discuss about the author's opinions of the various world leaders with whom he has tried to mend some of the world's most difficult problems? Do the outraged activists offer any substantive rebuttal to ANYTHING that's written in this book? Of course they don't. They simply parrot the party line like trained chimps....oooh, oooh, oooh, Zionist bad!! Pathetic.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting
Review: Interesting book. Of course, everyone wants peace. Does the same government structure work for everyone however? Will every country abide by the same laws? Can one convert religious beliefs and differences with or without war?

The Case for Democracy is thought provoking. I believe most will agree with the overall concept. It is the implementation of this concept that can become challenging.

Another interesting book I just read is Stop Working by Rohan Hall.

Rating:
Summary: How to Marry Realpolitik with Political Idealism
Review: Natan Sharansky starts by describing the three sources of power, which he discovered in his non-violent struggle to promote human rights within the former Soviet Union and the right of Soviet Jews to emigrate to Israel (pp. xi, 108-112). At the bottom of the pyramid are the men and women, who have the privilege to live free in a democratic society. In the middle are their leaders who unlike dictators ultimately depend on the popular will to be voted in or out of power through periodical, free elections (pp. 74, 78-81, 160). At the top of the structure is the commonwealth of free societies, which represents the free world.

Sharansky rightly reminds his readers that many people who have never lived in a fear society, take for granted what is at best a distant dream in many dictatorships (p. xiii). In a free society, the key challenge is acquiring the moral clarity to identify evil (p. xxii). The respect for the right of dissent, which is more important than its content, is one of the key ingredients of a well-oiled democratic society. People can eventually lose sight of what unites them by comparing their fellow citizens, who do not share their convictions, with the henchmen of fear societies and by sympathizing with dictators (pp. xiii, 193-226).

In a fear society, the courage to dissent is the first human quality to confront evil, which guarantees all others (pp. xxii, 11). Fear societies ultimately sap themselves by investing much energy to keep true believers happy, turn apparently loyal double-thinkers into reliable subjects and crush dissent (pp. 8-9, 39-64, 102-105, 132).

Sharansky deplores that in the name of the status quo, the struggle for peace and security in the world is rarely associated with the promotion of democracy (pp. xix, 3). Rhetoric of the free world too often falls short in practice in the name of realism (pp. xxi, 67-71, 232-265). The realpolitik is based on strategic interests alone and excludes any move towards moral considerations (pp. 69-70, 80). In the free world, the realists consider the champions of exporting democracy elsewhere, at best naïve and at worst dangerous (pp. 15, 19, 68, 70).

The usual reasons given for excusing détente are: 1) A suspected lack of enthusiasm for democracy in certain cultures and civilizations, 2) the apparent predictability of fear societies that unlike democracies do not unleash chaos and instability, and 3) the little leverage that the free world seems to have for facilitating change in fear societies (pp. 5-6, 14-17, 26-37, 62-70, 92-95, 107-108, 143, 154, 163-164, 269-271, 277).

Unfortunately, supporting fear societies today in the name of stability will often be rewarded with blood and tears tomorrow as 9/11 and other past events have clearly demonstrated (pp. 14, 92-95, 107, 152, 167). One of the key techniques that the fear society uses to keep itself in power is to export terror outwards by creating external enemies and disguising its domestic failures in the process (pp. 14, 82-88, 191-192). Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Afghanistan under the deposed Talibans are just a few examples in the recent history of humanity (pp. 21, 24-26, 68-69).

Sharansky wants to convince his audience that what was done previously could be replicated to democratize and liberalize the Middle East (pp. 4, 13, 154, 188-189, 279). President Ronald Reagan and Senator Henry Jackson believed that the deliquescence of the crumbling Soviet tyranny could be accelerated through a confrontational approach instead of seeking accommodation with "moderate" non-democratic regimes (pp. 5, 9, 11-12, 19). Jackson and Reagan were convinced that the people behind the Iron Curtain could one day enjoy freedom as much as their counterparts in the free world. Unlike their predecessors who linked their countries' foreign policies to a fear society's international conduct, Reagan and Jackson would link America's policies to the Soviet's domestic conduct (pp. 112-123, 132-143). The Soviet dictatorship was put under domestic and international pressure to become increasingly free (pp. 12-13, 123-143).

Like their predecessors who overestimated the durability of the Soviet tyranny, today realists are convinced that democracy and Islam are largely incompatible. To convince their detractors, realists point to the absence of separation between church and state, the treatment of women, underdeveloped civil societies, a small middle class, widespread poverty and rampant illiteracy in most of the Islamic world (pp. 32-37, 97-99).

Realists should keep in mind that the most anti-American regimes in the Middle East such as Iran have the most pro-American populations because of these regimes' anti-Americanism. Reversely, the most pro-American regimes in the Middle East such as Egypt and Saudi-Arabia have the most anti-American populations because of these regimes' pro-Americanism (pp. 60, 69, 88, 91, 159, 172-173, 249).

With the help of other capitalist democracies, the U.S. should muster the will to combine the "security hawks" with the "human rights camp" by for example modulating through a system of trading points the annual financial aid granted to non-democracies in the region (pp. 143, 274). The more freedom these countries grant to their populations, the more economic privileges they get in the form of for instance increased foreign direct investments and access to new export markets (p. 278). Sharansky makes clear that the free world should resist the eventual oil blackmail that some Middle Eastern regimes could be tempted to use for inspiring fear (p. 275). To paraphrase President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in opposing tyranny, the only thing the democracies have to fear is fear itself. Over time, the financial aid given to these countries could be gradually reduced because of their greater political and economic stability and of the enhanced purchasing power of their populations. To summarize, Sharansky is right to link freedom to peace and tyranny to terror in domestic and international relations (pp. 76-81, 88-92, 276).



Rating:
Summary: Marrying moral relativism with faux freedom
Review: Natan Sharansky's concept of freedom is a very naive one.
To him, Freedom is simply holding an election and allowing
the tyranny of the majority. Thats a great system if your
on the "winning" side politically and more importantly
economically. But if your not, you will find out that
its very possible for a "democratic" state in the Sharansky
sense to mistreat and even terrorize its own population.
It happens all the time.

And its quite possible for sham democracies to produce as
bad a result as a dictatorship. Take Pakistan. When
Pakistan was a "democracy", the result was the funding of
the Taliban, war with India, a nuclear program out of control
and policies that let the country rot.

What Sharansky doesn't understand is that there is more involved
in creating a freedom-based democratic society than simply
holding an election. For freedom to work, you need a healthy
political system with an opposition, you need national objectives
which don't involve war and you need a political consensus that
brings minority electoral groups into the system and takes
care of them.

But what I fear deeply is that Sharansky is less interested
in freedom than in something that looks alot like Fascism.
Fascism meaning countries being run by powerful collections
of interest (business and otherwise) who collectively have
enough control over the press, religion and business that
voters dont matter. The majority votes, but the real power
to make decisions is held in a few hands.

I've seen a fear society and I've seen countries that are
called "free" create "fear" societies for groups which are
not in the majority.

Worse yet, is Sharansky's moral clarity. His free society
always sees good and evil with no shades of grey. But how
real is that? It works well for the newspapers, but in the
real world its never that simple. Thats why half of Sharansky's
own government wants to bomb Iran and the other half wants
to become its new best friend. Are the politicians on one
side or the other of that debate to be labeled supporters of
evil?

Sharansky also does the usual Fascist mental gymnastics with
regard to dissent. Dissent is fine, welcome and protected
in a free society as long as the dissenter does not serve
the purposes of "evil". The problem is that what serving
evil is a very fluid concept and in the control of those in
power. It usually means that dissent over military, foreign
policy, the role of ethnic minorities in the country, and
the historical narriative of the country
are considered to "serve evil". And once you do that, dissent
has ceased to exist because you have adopted word-for-word
the ideology behind every "fear" society.

Sharansky is good at making his own reasons for why many
oppose "exporting democracy", but avoids dealing with the
real arguments:

-) The worst governments can't be removed by anything short
of force. And the price of removing them by force is too high.
-) The alternative to removing them by force is funding
local opposition that kills people, blows things up and
otherwise attacks the government.
-) Sanctions often push rogue states into alliances that
have worse implications. (see 1990s pakistan) (see also
the fact that Chinese oil companies are replacing US oil
companies in southeast asian dicatorships).
-) The costs of building democracy in the worst countries are
too high for anyone to pay. No country has hundreds of
thousands of soldiers or hundreds of billions of dollars to
re-build west africa (as an example)
-) Economic interests drive national policy toward dictatorships.
Libya is run by a terrorist, but sanctions on Libya are lifted
for reasons that have more to do with oil policy that morality.
See also US relations with China, US relations with
Vietnam...etc.

Sharansky's argument that the we must attack fear societies
to avoid terrorism is rather dubious. The reason for tolerating
the USSR and East Germany was that the alternative at the time
was a nuclear war. And as far as the Taliban goes, they were
the creation of "democracy" in Pakistan. Pakistan created
them, funded them and kept them in power.

His final case is what could be expected. The US needs to
fight all-out to replace the governments of arab
countries. Sharansky, as with most of these guys, is quite
happy ignoring other regions of the world were democracy
doesn't exist. In particular, it would be good to hear
him to talk about what should be done about the largest
communist fear society on the planet. (its called China).

But he isn't going to talk about that because quite frankly
business interests in the US LOVE the chinese government.
Cheap imports at Walmart mean a whole lot more to them than
freedom.


Rating:
Summary: The Bush-Sharansky Doctrine Doesn't Apply to Israel
Review: President Bush credits Natan Sharansky with clearly describing the reasons the United States now seeks to bring democracy to the countries of the Middle East.

Sharansky argues that it will be very easy for the United States to force democratic reforms on the Arab nations of the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt, because authoritarian regimes are inherently weak. After all, he says, Ronald Reagan brought about the downfall of the Soviet Union "without a shot being fired".

In the course of a recent debate on Meet the Press, conservative Pat Buchanan brilliantly stripped away the humanitarian mask and forced Sharansky to admit that he favors Israel's ongoing military rule of the Palestinians and opposes withdrawal of Jewish settlements from Palestinian territories. In the end, Sharansky claims an exceptional status for the "Jewish state", which is presumably to be left free to discriminate on the basis of religion and ethnicity, to be exempt from human rights concerns, and to be free to employ violent tactics -- until the Palestinians stop resisting the Israeli military occupation and colonial policies.

It seems the Bush-Sharansky policy boils down to using America's wealth and power to make trouble for Israel's neighbors, including countries the U.S. depends on for oil and strategic assistance.

Thinking that they themselves are purely good and others are purely evil, Sharansky and Bush are unable to admit that their provocative speech and actions feed the very fire they say they want to extinguish.

Rating:
Summary: A TOUCHSTONE FOR THE
Review: President George W. Bush revealed one of the predominant sources that will inform American foreign policy for the next four years in a recent interview with Washington Times's editor in chief, Wesley Pruden:
If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy read Natan Sharansky's book "The Case for Democracy." Anybody read it? Read it. It's a great book. And I think it will help - it will help explain a lot of the decisions that you'll see being made - you've seen made and will continue to see made. And it will help explain what's going to happen in the Palestinian territories as far as we're concerned. For government, particularly [-] for opinion makers, I would put it on your recommended reading list. It's short and it's good. This guy is an heroic figure, as you know. It's a great book.
With the ongoing war in Iraq and the cautious optimism surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian situation occurring under Bush's watch, Sharansky's book is both precious and prescient, providing unique insight into what may happen in America, the Middle East and the world in the near future.

(...)

From this, Sharansky extends his moral-absolutist view of the world, asserting that humankind has an innate desire for and right to what is good: Freedom. The ruling powers in fear societies only suppress their citizens' natural thirst for freedom by employing brutal methods of oppression at home and constructing threats of external enemies-the former leads to gross violations of human rights and the latter, to global instability. Echoing the sentiments of the post-September 11, 2001 "Bush Doctrine," Sharansky concludes that for the betterment of humankind and global stability, fear societies must be converted into a good force-democracy-and that it is incumbent upon free societies to actively bring about this change through proactive and, if need be, preemptive measures.

Sharansky constructs his argument against the backdrop of his truly remarkable life story. His experience of fear societies from within, as a dissenter in the former Soviet Union, and from without, as an Israeli Member of the Knesset dealing with Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority, provides him with a great vantage point from which he can identify the abject moral nature of these states and the means required to defeat them. The book unfolds chronologically, with Sharansky first presenting the lessons learned from the Soviet Union's dramatic collapse, then using these lessons to explain why attempts at achieving a real peace between Israel and Palestinians have failed, and finally showing what is needed to bring about a future peace.

In the book's first half, Sharansky argues that attempts to gently cajole the Soviet Union from its malevolent ways bore little fruit. Henry Kissinger is depicted as the embodiment of the free world's failed approach to tyranny, while his employment of détente, a policy that sought to maintain global stability by "easing tensions" between the two superpowers, credited for prolonging the Soviet Union's reign. With Kissinger defining American foreign policy, the USSR was able to continue to violate the rights of its own citizens as well as remain an active threat to its immediate neighbours and the world as a whole.

(...)

In the second half of the book, Sharansky applies the lessons stated above to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He faults several American presidents, European leaders, and Israeli prime ministers for not appreciating that the democratization of Palestinian society is an essential prerequisite for achieving real peace. Sharansky claims that the past decade has been mired by failures and increased violence specifically because Israel and the international community decided to support the non-democratic Arafat, seeing him as a more stable and moderate force than potential alternatives. Those that supported him believed that peace could be negotiated prior to establishing a democratic Palestinian society. For Sharansky, this is putting the buggy in front of the horse; it is the achievement of true democracy that will allow the Palestinians to become a real partner in the peace process. As with the fall of the Communist Bloc, peace in the Middle East will occur only once the members of the free world hold tyrants accountable for their belligerent behaviour and fear societies become free.

When it comes to global democracy and, specifically, the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is little distance between Sharansky and Bush. In a trip this past December to Halifax, Bush stated:
Our destination is clear: two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security. And that destination can be reached by only one path, the path of democracy and reform and the rule of law. If all parties will apply effort, if all nations who are concerned about this issue will apply goodwill, this conflict can end and peace can be achieved. And the time for that effort and the time for that goodwill is now.
Action over words, democratic reform over détente-this is Bush and Sharansky's shared mantra. With the performance-based `Roadmap' accepted both by Palestinians and Israelis, and endorsed by the international community as a whole, one can only expect that the second Bush administration will fulfill its pledge to help ensure that the Palestinians combat terror and embrace democratic reform as a prerequisite to becoming a recognized partner in peace. There is much room to question whether Sharansky's philosophy will in practice bring success. However, the knowledge that Sharansky's ideas will finally be put into play by Bush will allow us to see if his theory can emerge from its cocoon as a proof, with it bringing a democratic Palestinian society and a much overdue resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Rating:
Summary: Good, but flawed
Review: Sharansky makes a persuasive arguement that spreading freedom
in the world should be a primary objective of free countries.

Tragically however, his politics prevent him from really
accepting his own arguement. Sharansky is anti-peace fanatic
in Israel and his politics don't really allow
for any sort of even marginal acceptance of Israelis who
are not jews let alone peace with palestinians.

I mean if he believes all the things he says, what he should
be for is Israel annexing the west bank and gaza and bravely
creating a democracy of all the peoples. But he isn't for
that. While democracy is the best possible outcome in every
other country and situation, its not acceptable in Israel to
him. Remember, this is a person who considers Ariel Sharon
as a liberal endangering Israel on the peace issue.

The other problem I have is that he has developed a dangerous
idea of allowing only limited dissent in free countries. A
free society cannot pick and choose what dissent is allowed.
It cannot for example use the justification of war to crush
anyone who disagrees with the war. Free people are either
allowed to dissent on any political issue or they are not free.
You cannot establish bounds for allowed political speech in
a free country. But in the name of war and nationalism, he
wants to.

He is right that the future is on the side of freedom. But
free societies have to deal with their own problems and
make themselves better. War and politics can't be used as
an excuse to ignore problems.

When America was under threat during the cold war, the threat
of the soviets did not stop america from expanding freedom
within its own borders through the civil rights movement.

Freedom is something that must be constantly developed and
fought for. Sharansky is right that freedom must be our
goal rather than appeasment, but he is wrong in thinking
that freedom in the free countries must be limited to fight
the war on fear countries successfully.


Rating:
Summary: this book is brilliant
Review: Spreading freedom and piece around the world is the surest way to eliminate terrorism.

Rating:
Summary: Good book but not a very thought out plan
Review: What will work for some , won't work for others . We interevened and we brought on terrorism to ourselves cause of it. With thoughts like this book , U.s.a is in far more danger than we know .Not just usa but the rest of the world too.

Rating:
Summary: A Repair Manual for The World
Review: Without democracy, there can be no justice or peace. It is as simple as that. The author knows whereof he speaks, having spent about 13 years in Soviet prisons. He knows why he was freed (linkage between more freedom in the old USSR and more trade with the west), and he knows what will work with other countries in today's world.
It is not brain surgery. In recorded history, no democracy has attacked another democracy because democracies rely on the support of their people, most of whom would only want to go to war as a last result. Therefore, if you want to avoid war, and make peace, make democracies-not peace agreements with despots. Appeasement kills.
Over the weekend, right after I had completed the book, I saw Sharansky on Meet the Press. The other guest was Pat Buchannan. I thought that Mr. Buchannan was going to start crying. Sharansky destroyed him-in a very peaceful and professional manner.
We live in a dangerous world. President Bush has decided to use this book, and what it teaches, as a Repair Manual for the world. We will all benefit. The book is a masterpiece.