The Opinionated Bastard

Here's what they've been trying to do.

Since 2002 the goals were:

• Work on a diplomatic front to push countries into becoming more democratic across the board.
• Work towards establishing and maintaining democratic civilian rule in Pakistan.
• Create a Constitutional Democracy in Afghanistan
• Promote Democracy in the Middle East
• Promote Free Media in the Middle East
• Promote Democracy in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Republics.
• Promote Women's rights in Iraq and Afghanistan
• Push for more Human Rights worldwide (generally via the UN)
• Push for more religious freedom worldwide (generally via direct diplomacy or NGOs)
• Push for more worker rights, and more private businesses.

Here's how the State Department has done so far:

Overall, in 2003 18 countries became more free and in 2005 25 countries became more free. That's after subtracting out countries that had become less free, so that's the net gain worldwide!

In Pakistan, things are going slowly, but progressing. It seems like the State Department is working on two major goals. One is to reduce the amount of corruption in Pakistan, while the other is to begin creating some democratic infrastructure. Something you have to realize about Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many of the other 'stans is that they are at best loosely governed. By this I mean that while the central government has power in the cities, in the countryside the local clan patriarch has much more control. The press likes to call these guys warlords, but that implies more formality then there really is. What really happens is that the richest guy in the village has more influence over the locals then the central government.

So in Pakistan, it's not so much that the mayor needs to be democratically elected as there needs to be the concept of even having a mayor and a city council taught to the locals. Humans being humans, and power abhoring a vacuum, these outlying areas had some sort of informal methods of doing this already: “We'll all meet a Achmed's house for tea to figure out where the new pastureland will be.” This happens in the US as well, the Rose Parade committee in Pasadena is one of the central power structures in that town. In Flagstaff, it used to be the businessmen who met for breakfast every morning at the Montevista who decided everything. The difference between Flagstaff and Pakistan though is that we have enough democratic process instilled in us since birth that its possible to go around these ad hoc power structures when we have to. In Pakistan, they are the only power structure, which makes it impossible (and eventually, corrupt).

They're not going to change just because the central government says so. It becomes a carrot and a stick approach. Usually what happens is the central government proposes some local benefit (fixing the potholes in road), but insists that the locals form some elected committee to decide on the route, how it should be fixed, who should fix it, etc. The locals, humoring the central government to get their road fixed will do so. What then happens is what has happened throughout history: that committee becomes the seed from which democratic reforms blossom.

So at any rate, the State Department is trying to create these sorts of foundations in Pakistan, which seems to be a tall order, while at the same time fighting corruption.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan, things are in some ways progressing faster then in Pakistan. Part of this is because the US has much more of a free hand then in Pakistan, but its also because unlike Pakistan, Afghanistan has been so destroyed by a combination of civil war and the Taliban that its more a matter of building a country from scratch. Some areas still are controlled by clan leaders or warlords, but with so many expatriates returning and wanting a voice in their local region, its become harder to stick to tradition.

In the rest of the middle east only a little bit of progress has been made towards democracy, though very recently (since the elections in Iraq), much of the leadership there has read the writing on the wall (Lebanon, Egypt) and may be moving towards some liberalizations. More of them are moving towards a free press, this is no doubt due to Al Jazeera and its competitors. This isn't very surprising, as the oil-rich countries end up being sort of a hydraulic empire in that all money flows from the government via oil revenues. This makes it very difficult for reformers to get a foothold.

In Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Republics, the State Department is hoping for a half point improvement in the democracies in the region, with a quarter point improvement in the scores for the autocracies. What that means in reality is the State Department hopes for large improvements in Eastern Europe, with smaller improvements for the 'stans. Comparing the chart on the State Department website with the latest data we can see how they did. Only 1 out of the 7 autocracies listed improved (Kazakhstan). In the democracies, 9 out of 11 improved (most by a dramatic amount), 1 stayed the same (Georgia), and one got worse (Russia). So in most of Eastern Europe, democracy moved forward by leaps and bounds, but in the 'stans, not so much. I think there are similar problems to Pakistan there, but the other issue is probably that its easier for a partially democratic country to become more democratic.

In Afghanistan, most of the progress towards women's rights seems to be aimed at creating a small independent group of women entrepreneurs, and training teachers. These are baby steps in my opinion, but that's probably where Afghanistan is out. Its not clear from the state department report what if anything they're doing about women's rights in Iraq, I suspect that has turned out to be a minor issue in Iraq.

Anyways, that's my summary of where the State Department is at, you can read the report for yourself here.

If you're interested in seeing how the world is moving towards or away from democracy on a weekly basis, I recommend the “Winds of War” update, here's the latest.)