The perils of democratization: Nationalism, markets, and human rights

Abstract

Immediately after the end of the Cold War there was much talk of a"New World order, 'and even of the"end of history. "1 The general idea was that one of the two great political ideologies of the twentieth century, Marxism-Leninism, had been discredited, leaving world politics free for the triumph of its only serious rival, liberal democracy. It was widely assumed that liberal democracy consisted of three main elements: human rights, democracy, and market economics. The idea that a new world order could and would be built on this conception of liberal democracy has been undermined by the outbreak of violent ethnic conflicts, the persistence of brutal dictatorships, and by resistance to the implementation, and even to the recognition, of universalistic principles by appeals to state sovereignty, economic or political necessity, and/or cultural difference. I shall argue that the idea of a new world order was always based on false theoretical assumptions, and that clarification of these errors will contribute to more soundly-based human-rights policies. The clarification of theoretical errors does nothing, of course, to eliminate the dangerous facts of the world. It should nevertheless indicate the nature of the problems that must be solved if the ideals of liberal democracy are to be advanced. Some doubt that the principles of liberal democracy can or ought to be universally implemented, 2 but I shall assume that the principles of human rights are universally applicable, and that they entail a commitment to liberal democracy.31 shall, therefore, investigate the problems raised for the universal implementation of human rights by contemporary democratic transitions. I propose to defend the following propositions: