Discussion guide for:
THE CASE FOR DEMOCRACY:
The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny & Terror
by Natan Sharansky
with Ron Dermer
New York: PublicAffairs, 2004
_______________________________________________________________________________
THE AUTHOR AND THE BOOK
Natan Sharansky has spent his life championing democracy and freedom, receiving the Congressional Gold Medal of Freedom for his courageous struggle against tyranny. A former Soviet dissident, he was arrested by Soviet authorities in 1977 on trumped-up charges of treason and espionage, then spent 10 years in a Soviet prison. His wife, Avital, organized an international campaign calling for his release, finally obtaining that release on February 11, 1986. He arrived in Israel that same night. Elected in 1988 as President of the newly created Zionist Forum, the umbrella organization of former Soviet activists, Sharansky worked to promote the cause of Soviet Jewry. To that end, he founded and was elected chairman of Israel’s Yisrael B'Aliyah party in 1995; the party won seven Knesset seats, and Sharansky was appointed Minister of Industry and Trade, a post he filled from 1996-1999. He then served one year as Minister of the Interior, and in 2001was appointed Minister of Housing and Construction and Deputy Prime Minister. In 2003, Sharansky became the Minister for Jerusalem Affairs.
President George W. Bush said:
"If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky's book,
The Case for Democracy"
_________________________________________________________________________________
FREE VS FEAR SOCIETIES
-- Nations can be divided into 2 groups based on their level of freedom:
"Free Societies" and "Fear Societies"
-- Simple test for a Free Society:
Can a person walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm?
This does not necessarily mean that a society is "just,"
e.g. women can vote, no discrimination, free market economy.
But a Fear Society will always be unjust, so this is an important threshold for a nation to cross.
_________________________________________________________________________________
WHY IT MATTERS TO US THAT OTHER NATIONS ARE FREE SOCIETIES
-- Our western values imbue us with a moral preference for human rights.
-- But beyond this, history indicates that true democracies do not go to war with one another.
-- Note: Just because a nation holds elections does not make it a true democracy.
For a nation to be considered a true democracy, it must have truly free elections.
Free elections are those held in the environment of Free Societies -- where citizens can express their views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm.
_________________________________________________________________________________
WHY DEMOCRACIES ARE MORE PEACEFUL, NONDEMOCRACIES MORE BELLIGERENT
-- The mechanics of democracy make democracies more peaceful,
while those of tyranny make nondemocracies inherently belligerent.
-- In democracies, leaders must satisfy demands of constituencies to stay in power.
Since typically, constituencies want peace and prosperity, if there is an alternative to war,
whether real or imagined, the public will demand that the government pursue it.
-- In nondemocracies, leaders do not depend upon the approval of their people.
War is often in the interest of their leaders.
If fact, drumming-up antipathy against external enemies is often used to justify to citizens the repression and bad circumstances they must face. The public is told they must make sacrifices because their survival demands it.
_________________________________________________________________________________
FREE SOCIETIES ARE FOR EVERYONE
-- Many mistakenly assume that some cultures do not want freedom or are incapable of enjoying it.
-- History does not bear this out:
Totalitarian ideas were at the heart of Japanese culture for centuries prior to WWII.
Russia now has a fledgling democracy after centuries of autocratic rule and
decades of a brutal Communist regime.
The majority of the world's Muslims now live under democratically constituted governments:
e.g. India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey, North America, Western Europe.
_________________________________________________________________________________
PEOPLE IN FEAR SOCIETIES FRACTURE INTO 3 GROUPS
1. True Believers - those who agree with the prevailing order.
2. Dissidents - those who are willing to defy the prevailing order despite the risk of punishment.
In both of the above groups, there is little to no gap between what they think
and what they say publicly.
3. Double Thinkers - those who do not believe in the ideology,
but are afraid to accept the risks associated with dissent.
_________________________________________________________________________________
WHAT FEAR SOCIETIES MUST DO TO MAINTAIN THEIR POWER
-- Fear Society leaders are like soldiers who must always point a gun at their enemy.
Eventually, their arms will begin to tire until the gun's weight becomes unbearable.
Once exhausted, they must lower their weapons and the prisoners will escape.
-- Yet, Fear Societies can never be maintained solely based on an army and a secret police.
They must control what is read, said, heard, and thought.
They need to maintain a constant pool of True Believers.
_________________________________________________________________________________
HOW FREE SOCIETIES CAN TOPPLE FEAR SOCIETIES
1. By linking the favorability of trade agreements to how well the Fear Societies treat their own people.
Free Societies typically have better technology because they unleash the creative potential
of their people.
Fear Societies need the benefits of these technologies in their attempts to keep up.
2. By publicizing the grievances of dissidents, pressuring Fear Societies for compliance
to maintain these trade agreements.
3. This combination of the exposure of tyrannical practices with a show of outside support
gives many Double Thinkers the confidence to become Dissidents, and
True Believers the knowledge to become Double Thinkers, destabilizing the regimes.
_________________________________________________________________________________
HOW FREE SOCIETIES TOPPLED THE SOVIET UNION
1. Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA) achieved passage of a Senate amendment linking American trade benefits with Soviet emigration in the early '70's.
This was in reaction to the misguided détente policies of the Nixon administration,
which added legitimacy to the Soviet Union by recognizing it as a
permanent, counterbalancing superpower.
The issue of increased emigration had the potential to undermine this tyrannical regime by weakening the Soviets’ ability to control dissidents through fear,
i.e. dissidents would have the option to leave.
Ultimately, Soviets chose to forsake these economic benefits to maintain control over their population.
__________________________________________________________________________________
HOW FREE SOCIETIES TOPPLED THE SOVIET UNION (CONTINUED)________________________
2. Helsinki Accords in 1975 offered legitimacy to Soviet control of Eastern Europe on the condition that they upheld basic human rights of Soviet Citizens.
As a result of this agreement, Soviet dissidents now had an accepted reason to register complaints, and
Western nations now a reason to listen and respond to them.
3. Reagan & Gorbachev
Reagan recognized that the Soviet's lack of freedom would not allow it to keep up with
U.S. defense technology.
He decided to force a competition by embracing advanced strategic missile defenses and deploying Pershing missiles in Europe.
Gorbachev responded by expanding his peoples’ liberties, hoping it would help them compete.
But, the global marketplace and information age taught many more of the good life
outside the Soviet Union, and converted many True Believers into Double Thinkers.
So while he thought he'd be seen as graciously expanding their liberties, instead
he made them understand how little freedom they had, and the regime crumbled.
_________________________________________________________________________________
WE ARE FAILING IN THE MIDDLE EAST BY NOT FOLLOWING THIS PROVEN FORMULA
Oslo-1993
After years of Israeli rejection of the PLO’s legitimacy, Israel's Yitzak Rabin announced an agreement
made in secret with PLO's Yasser Arafat.
Israel agreed to transfer territory to the PLO, which would govern a population
with its own large police force armed by Israel.
In exchange, the PLO pledged to abandon its goal of destroying Israel and would fight terrorism.
Problem: the fate of Arafat as a leader was linked to his ability to maintain power by brute force,
not to the fate of Palestinians themselves.
He talked peace in Western capitals, but incited Palestinians in their territories.
PLO-run schools educated children from textbooks that preached hatred against Israel.
_________________________________________________________________________________
WE ARE FAILING IN THE MIDDLE EAST BY NOT FOLLOWING THIS PROVEN FORMULA
(CONTINUED)
Camp David-2000
Israeli Prime Minister Barak offers to divide Jerusalem, giving a portion to the PLO,
once again based on secret meetings with Arafat.
He asked for Arafat to end conflict in return.
But, this was an offer Arafat could not accept because inciting hatred against Israel as an enemy
stabilized his control.
Arafat turned it down and started a war based on terror instead, the Intifada.
_________________________________________________________________________________
A MISSED OPPORTUNITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST: RIGHT WORDS, WRONG ACTIONS
“Road Map to Peace”
President Bush's post 9/11 Iraq policy recognizes that creating a democracy can end a nation's belligerence.
In a 6/24/02 speech, he seemed to indicate that he wanted to apply the same thinking to the Palestinian situation:
"I call upon [the Palestinians] to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts…If liberty can blossom in the rocky soil of the West Bank and Gaza, it will inspire millions of men and women around the globe who are equally weary of poverty and oppression.”
But, these ideas have not been embraced by the Israeli government, the U.S. State Department,
nor the European community.
The "Road Map to Peace" in the Middle East has no linkage between support for Palestinians and how they treat their own people.
__________________________________________________________________________________
WHAT WE MUST DO
-- Have faith in the power of freedom to bring peace.
-- Link trade agreements with how Fear Societies treat their own people.
-- Embrace dissidents, publicize their plight, pressure Fear Societies to reform.
-- Avoid our nation's past, deplorable record of backing tyrants in a misguided quest for "stability."
Only Free Societies will provide a stable peace.
Discussion Guide written by Steve Boriss, St. Louis Town Hall Organizer
