Liberty, democracy and the great divide

Recently an Egyptian friend whispered to me at a dinner party: "Be careful, an election in Saudi Arabia could elect Osama bin Laden."

Here's an interesting question to test our democratic credentials: how do you handle a political party whose avowed aim is to stop any more elections? That's what happened in Algeria, and the military, with the acquiescence of the West, took control and prevented the result of that election being implemented.

Another fundamentalist Islamic state was a fearful thought. So those who were so loud about the violent military reversal of an election result in Burma had a different view closer to home. This brings into profound question the age-old debate between liberty and democracy.

Yes, we are all for democracy, but elections are only one important part of building democratic, liberal, secular societies. They're the most important part.

They give legitimacy internationally to regimes, but without stable, transparent institutions - from courts, property rights, parliaments and the rule of law - they can send a false signal.

Europe built many liberal societies based on liberty and laws to protect the people from greedy royals and a rapacious ruling class. Democracy - that is, the vote - was a relatively recent innovation.

Indeed, it was not until the 1920s that women could vote for the mother of parliaments, in the United Kingdom. As Fareed Zakaria notes in his book, The Future of Freedom, liberty came to the West before democracy.

In the 1800s many enlightened leaders in Europe were far more liberal than their nobles or superstitious peasantry. In the Middle East, many leaders are now more enlightened than many of their advisers.

Morocco, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar and Bahrain have leaders who are pushing the envelope but fear the implications of populist politicians appealing to the fundamentalist masses. It is a strong and secure leader who can promote women's rights.

Here's the problem for nation building and these people of virtue and principle who correctly see freedom and democracy as bulwarks against repressive fundamentalists who encourage terrorism.

They don't see Nasser or Ataturk as modernisers, liberators and fathers of independence. For them the idea of a nation state is an impious concept.

Can democracy be imposed on a country that is divided by religion, is dirt poor and is lacking the stable institutions that make democracy real in its delivery of liberty and rights? A serious statistical study of this problem was made by political scientists Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi.

They found that if a democratic country had a per capita income of less than $US1500, its government on average had a life expectancy of only eight years; between $US1500 and $US3000, about 18 years; once income reached $US6000, democratic governments became highly resilient.

As Zakaria explains: "Once rich, democracies become immortal." So what about the argument that only rich countries can enjoy democracy? And what comes first, liberty and democracy, or wealth and democracy? Why aren't some oil- and resource-rich countries democratic?

Harvard economists Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner studied nearly 100 developing countries and discovered that resource-rich countries were strongly linked to economic failure. The richer a country was in resources, the slower its economy and freedoms grew. Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, countries living off "trusts" for oil and rents for canals, actually did worse. Why?

Zakaria explains that "easy money means a government does not need to tax its citizens". When a government taxes people it has to provide benefits in return, beginning with services, accountability and good governance but ending up with liberty and representation. The success of the West was about protecting the rights of the people against the state.

The Enlightenment was not just about freedom of religion; it was freedom from religion. Constitutions were created to safeguard the people's rights from populist politicians who could gain a majority if they turned up the heat and hate against the minority. There are many elections where the biggest tribe wins. Constitutions themselves don't guarantee rights and progress.

If so, Bolivia would be the richest, most free country on earth. It has had dozens of constitutions. Venezuela passed by 90 per cent of the vote a new constitution that strengthened its populist president. The same people are now on the streets seeking his removal.

The world holds its breath watching and hoping Iraq could become a model for other nations in the region. Some are holding their breath thinking that, if popular democracy works, then its implications could have a ripple effect, a ripple of hope or hate.

Some fear that democracy without strong institutions, courts, political parties and an effective civil society could turn nasty and lead to the election of theocratic leaders or strongmen who will deliver law and order. In most places, order for most people is a higher priority than law.