Is the interference of “democratic” nations in third world countries a means of assimilation?

When one speaks of Democracy, one automatically connects it to the “rule of the majority”. The often forgotten implication is that the majority’s dominance only has authority with the existence of a minority. Or else, that authority loses it meaning. The problem is that the developed nations are endeavouring to assimilate developing nations in the name of “democracy”. Ironically, the voice of minorities is being muted in the process of promoting Western-centric notion of democracy.

A recent article in The Guardian is entitled, “The UK has a vital diplomatic role to play on the global stage”. One might assume that the interference of democratic nations like the UK is a noble and good initiative. Through this discourse, the political agenda and propaganda of Western nations is euphemized and lost. The article states,

But now the game has changed. It is time to recognise the immense good that western power can play, and often has, in the promotion of decency and tolerance, and to develop strategies to undermine the reactionary forces in other great powers, namely Russia and China. Because it is Russia and China, not the west, that has not only vetoed action against the horrific Burmese regime but supplied it with military and other support. Other beneficiaries of the Russo-Sino diplomatic forcefield include a Syrian dictatorship that is currently massacring those of its citizens seeking a more democratic future. While continuing to bash the west hard and often, it will be increasingly important for an international community of human rights activists to hold the other great powers in check.

To see the full article, please click on the link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/jan/10/uk-vital-diplomatic-role-global-stage

Many scholars have also noted the role of the United Nations, who are the key promoters of democratization. In response to the criticisms and skepticisms of scholars, in response, the United Nations published a document named “An Agenda for Democratization”, where it proclaimed that,

The United Nations is, by design and definition, universal and impartial. While democratization is a new force in world affairs, and while democracy can and should be assimilated by all cultures and traditions, it is not for the United Nations to offer a model of democratization or democracy or to promote democracy in a specific case. Indeed, to do so could be counter-productive to the process of democratization which, in order to take root and to flourish, must derive from the society itself. Each society must be able to choose the form, pace and character of its democratization process. Imposition of foreign models not only contravenes the Charter principle of non-intervention in internal affairs, it may also generate resentment among both the Government and the public, which may in turn feed internal forces inimical to democratization and to the idea of democracy.

(To see the entire document, please click: http://www.un.org/fr/events/democracyday/pdf/An_agenda_for_democratization.pdf)

The “reluctance” of the United Nations to indulge in internal affairs of the governments is an ideal that is far from perfect during implementation.  The interference with domestic affairs seems inevitable, especially during reconstruction period of a nation. Moreover, the conditionalities that are attached to that of foreign aid makes it impossible for that to occur.