Realistic Idealism

Concerning the Arab revolution, it’s all more or less a matter of realpolitik. Some castigate the West for tolerating and encouraging authoritarian rulers for too long a time. Others insist on sticking with their own best interests — in other words, “realpolitik” as opposed to the supposed naïve idealism of values-based politics. For a long time, realpolitik meant that such oriental blemishes as dictatorships and torture were tolerated for the sake of “stability”.

No sooner had the revolutionaries put an end to the funereal silence before the United States began suggesting transitional solutions of the “stability” variety that appeal only randomly to some Egyptians.

The suggestion of packing Hosni Mubarak off to a hospital in Germany was one of the better solutions offered. (And by the way, it would be nice to remember this generous humanitarian gesture the next time a less prominent refugee is involved.) What’s really scary is how stubbornly the idea persists of a successor government made up of members from the old regime.

Foreign-determined stability takes precedence

In all, there is a continuation of politics based on foreign-determined “stability” that takes precedence over the autonomy of the people fighting for their rights. And this is done as if this were the “real” politics as opposed to “idealist” politics.

Even those who call for the primacy of democratic principles have been taken in by this artificial contradiction. The “idealists” too seldom supplement their all-important idealism with a crucial consideration, namely, that politics that takes its own values and ideals seriously is simultaneously the best and most promising realpolitik.

Indications of what a values-based realpolitik might look like have been shown to us in the past. They’re by no means models, but they show just about everything that should be avoided.

First, the West has taken entire nations hostage with its fear of Islamist terror. The West has either defeated Muslim nations by force because of it or left them to their dictators. That’s not only immoral, it’s also counterproductive from a realpolitik point of view. It ensures that the opposition forces get new nourishment every day.

Second, the West has confused its economic interests with the right to control global trade routes and oil supplies. We preferred to finance the apparatus of repression rather than to leave the spoils to an “uncontrolled” democratic government. That, too, was not only immoral, but counterproductive as well. Do democracies not realize that the “unrest” and the radical revolution will only grow if entire peoples are denied sharing in modernization and the wealth? That, by the way, also contradicts the assertion that the funereal silence was useful in protecting Israel.

Fight terrorists, not peoples and religions

Third, some now say that George W. Bush wasn’t completely wrong in preaching the exportation of democracy. That’s a really bad example. The ends and the means here stood in direct opposition. Anyone who destroys Western values as much as the USA does in its war on terror may reap a great deal, but it won’t be democracy.

A values-based realpolitik would combat terrorists and not peoples or religions. It would represent freedom and human rights via diplomacy, and not through force. It would maintain contact with civil societies, the bearers of future democracy, without patronizing them. It would balance their own economic interests with the needs of those societies.

It’s true that if one looks into the Arab world and beyond to Afghanistan and Pakistan, one sees huge risks. It’s also true that if the lid of a dictatorship is raised, new uncertainties escape, perhaps even religious Islamic-oriented parties. But if we believe in the success story of our own democracies, then we must realize that nothing ensures the often-mentioned stability as much as democratic and social participation, even if they don’t always take a shape we would prefer. We have to endure that as long as there’s no violation of fundamental human rights.

Does it sound “idealistic” to point all that out? If so, we should quit wasting our time talking about democracy at all.