You are currently in 1-2/Columns  

On October 31, 2004, just as America's presidential candidates were bracing themselves for the American election, a quieter election took place nearly halfway around the world. Ukraine's people voted for their own president in a controversial election deemed unfair by many western observers. Voters for the apparently losing candidate soon took up his cause, citing irregularities in voter lists and state media bias.

The problems of Ukraine's election are only mild examples of the difficulties faced by emerging democracies around the world. With democracy the government of choice for the world's superpowers, developing countries are turning to at least nominal democracy for their administration as well. However, challenges arise when nations with no history of government by the people come to the practical application of democratic principles.

Countries of the former Soviet Union, like Uzbekistan and Ukraine, are a case in point. Most of these nations transferred in the early 20th century from autocratic rule to a repressive Communist regime; when they finally became independent with the fall of the Soviet Union, each was left alone to choose its own form of government. Problems arose when most decided upon democracy, at least in name. Who will make up the new government in a country where one party has ruled for decades? How will they form the mechanism for a complete revolution in education, politics, and media?

Many of these countries simply did not answer the questions democracy posed and made a change only in name. Uzbeks tell a story of the formation of their current government: One day, the Communist Party of Uzbekistan met in the morning and officially dissolved itself. The former Communists went out to lunch, and met again in the afternoon, forming Uzbekistan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Though the details of this story are questionable, they attest to the fact that nothing but terminology has really changed in Uzbekistan. In 2002 a referendum was held in Uzbekistan to decide whether the term length should be extended for Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan who has been "elected" overwhelmingly in each election since 1990 (I have never met an Uzbek citizen who knew the names of the other candidates). The referendum ended in Karimov's favor. "I'm not voting," said a friend about the last election. "Things are decided from above anyway, so why waste my time?"

The former Soviet Union is not the only place in the world where this situation threatens to repeat itself. Iraq and Afghanistan, both countries with little or no experience with democracy, are now on the brink of a challenging new era. Can they learn from the mistakes of other countries like them, or will they, too, fall into nominal democracy for the sake of political correctness?

There is a glimmer of hope on the horizon. Only a few days before Americans voted for their next president, the results of Afghanistan's first democratic election in years came out: Hamid Karzai was Afghanistan's new president, elected under relatively fair conditions, according to the international election observers. A promising start for another of the world's new democratic governments! What will Afghanistan's future be? Only time can tell.

 

Print       E-mail      

Comment Devenir un Employé Réussi Québécois: Cinq Étapes à Changer Votre Style de Vie How to Become a Successful Quebecois Worker: Five Steps to Changing Your Lifestyle Challenges Plague the World's New Democracies Homeschooling and the College Prospect