Democracy is not always the best form of government

The end of the Cold War ushered a new political era in the world – that of the liberal political order. While this movement began in Eastern Europe, it quickly spread, in part, to every continent. The result was that it ended up leading to a situation where Western liberal democratic ideals were adopted, at least in part. A consequence was that the United States, and its liberal democratic allies, took it upon themselves to ensure that the whole world became a part of the democratic order. They sought to make sure that those countries that had previously been dictatorships ended up adopting democratic systems of government.

One of the most important events to take place in the twenty first century is the American invasion of Iraq under the pretext that it had weapons of mass destruction. The result was that a relatively stable government under Saddam Hussein that had been in power for decades was overthrown. Later evidence showed that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction, and in fact, had ended its chemical and biological weapons programs after the end of the First Gulf War. Since the overthrow of Hussein, Iraq has never known peace because it has not only faced considerable sectarian government, but it has also had to endure an American occupation, and the rise of terrorism. Under Hussein, such groups as al Qaeda had no way of getting into the country because of the powerful security apparatus that had been in place. However, with the overthrow of the secular Baathist regime, the situation changed with first the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq, and its later incarnation, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Iraq has since then been mired in conflict with the country being effectively divided into Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish regions; showing that Iraq as a nation might be doomed.

Another instance of an attempt to bring about democracy that has turned sour is the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Despite being an autocrat, Gaddafi had been at the helm of Libya for over forty years, and during this time, he had ensured that the country’s oil wealth was used for its development. Libya had risen from being one of the poorest countries in Africa to one of its most prosperous with its people having a high standard of living that people in some Western countries would have envied. However, the events that are called the Arab Spring took place and in Libya, the rebellion was based in the city of Benghazi. Gaddafi’s swift attempt to crush a rebellion that had the potential of destabilizing the whole of Libya was met with Western condemnation and active action, through NATO, to overthrow him. The success of the NATO operation created a power vacuum that has yet to be filled because since Gaddafi’s death, Libya has essentially been a failed state. It is divided between two main factions based in Tripoli and Tobruk, in addition to the presence of ISIS and largely autonomous tribal entities that have ensured the continued conflict in the country.

The promotion of Western liberal ideals had a direct influence on the development of the Arab Spring and the destabilization of Egypt, formerly one of the most successful states in the MENA region. Hosni Mubarak, the long-time Egyptian president who had been in power for three decades and had been a force of stability in the country ended up being forced to step down. He was replaced by Mohamed Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood candidate who actively sought to make sure that Egypt became an Islamic state. This highly divisive figure was overthrown one year later by the military under Fatah el Sisi. El Sisi, the current president, has returned Egypt to a semblance of stability despite being accused of repression. However, by the time he took power, the damage - following the chaos that had taken place in the aftermath of the fall of Mubarak in the form of continuous protest, and ISIS-affiliated groups taking root in the Sinai Peninsula - had already been done.

Therefore, imposed democracy is not always the best form of government within the various cultures, and countries across the world. Instead, it has to be allowed to evolve on its own because it will more likely gain wide acceptance, and institutions aimed at protecting minorities from oppression will be put in place. Overthrowing autocratic regimes that are a force for stability in many countries is an exercise in futility because it does not take into account the need to promote conditions aimed at bringing about the evolution of egalitarian systems of government.

There is no hope of doing perfect research

Research is the investigation of new and existing knowledge in order to confirm known facts as well as to develop them further whenever possible. It can also be used to establish new facts based either on old knowledge or newly discovered knowledge. The perfect research is very hard to achieve and very rare. However, it is possible to achieve it depending on the task which is being investigated at the time. If the task is direct and based on already established and undisputed facts, then the perfect research is possible. In spite of this, the achievement of the perfect research tends to be marred when researchers come up with different interpretations for an established fact mostly due to bias or in an attempt to make their research conform to mainstream ideas.

Warren, in his book History and the Historians (p.65), when commenting on Leopold Von Ranke’s influence in the writing of historical research states:

I have suggested that Ranke’s writing of History is more complex than our original picture of him as the would-be scientific/impartial prober of archives and historical technician. However, it is clear that Ranke’s fellow historians frequently misunderstood and simplified his position.

The researchers that came after Ranke and considered themselves to be of the Rankean school tended to adapt or distort his research methods to suit their personal agendas or political circumstances. This in my opinion casts doubt on the perfection of their researches.

One would be tempted to agree with the statement that there is no hope of doing perfect research because of the different styles or ways of thinking of different researchers. Researchers, even when working on the same topic or subject, hardly ever come to the same conclusions. Elmes, Kantowitz, and Roediger in their book Research Methods in Psychology (p.12), state that questions derive from actual research and it is therefore apparent that even experts do not conduct perfect research. Furthermore, a researcher may be influenced by his ideology or school of thought. If, for example, he were a Marxist historian writing a political history, his work would most likely be very influenced by his ideological stance. Therefore, Marxist and non-Marxist researchers would end up with totally different conclusions to the same problem. The use of secondary sources during research tends to expose the researcher to the prejudices or biases of the authors of the sources which at times are very difficult to view objectively. The researcher ends up being blindly led by the opinions of his sources and this eventually distorts his conclusions leading to an imperfect research.

Moreover, an idea or an opinion which is considered fact today may not necessarily be a fact in the future. I suggest that a perfect research should be able to withstand the test of time and retain its basic truths. This is rarely the case considering that man evolves and opinions change over time. A mere two centuries ago, it was a common belief worldwide that man and all the other creatures on earth were created by a divine being over seven days. The coming of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution changed all that (mostly in academic circles) and it is now considered fact that all creatures evolved from more primitive forms to what they are today. What remains to be seen is whether the theory of evolution will remain a fact tomorrow or whether new research will reveal it to be irrelevant.

It is my belief that the perfect research is possible but this can only be achieved if its conclusions are beyond reproach by the critics within the field in which the research is being conducted. The level of perfection of a research can also be determined based on whether the research is simple or not. If it is simple then the research would be faultless or perfect because the answers to the research question or problem can easily be gotten. For example, if one wanted to assemble a new desktop computer and had no prior knowledge of how to do it correctly, all he would have to do would be to read the user manual that came with the computer and he would get the information instantly. On the other hand, if the United Nations wanted to know whether sanctions would work on a ‘rogue’ state, a research carried out on this would not give a definite answer because it is yet to be proven that sanctions are completely effective.

In conclusion, to achieve a perfect research especially in a field that has no definite result is very difficult and the best a researcher can do is to try to aim for a result that is as close as possible to perfect. The question that arises from the former statement is this; how does the researcher define the ideal or perfect result? I believe that the researcher should have the freedom to choose to the best of his knowledge what he believes to be the ideal. In the end, no opinion or result especially of a new research can be termed perfect simply because there are those who would find it perfect while there are others who would find it otherwise. Not everyone would be satisfied by the results hence the need for new researches in the same areas of study. These researches lead to my belief that there indeed is hope of doing perfect research because this is usually achieved through many trials and errors.

References

Elmes, D.G., Kantowitz, B.H., & Roediger, H.L. (2005). Research Methods in Psychology. Stamford. Cengage Learning.

Warren, J., (1999). History and the Historians. London: Hodder Murray.

The Rise of Nationalism

There are numerous changes that have become a reality in the world today. Among these is the rise of the political right in Western countries, which have for decades been bastions of tolerance and liberalism. The rise of the right is a cause of concern especially considering that Western nations are increasingly focusing inwards; resulting in a threat to the liberal order that has sustained the world for decades. While it is the democratic right of all individuals in the world to choose the government that they feel best protects their interests, it is also important that they also consider their responsibility to others. Thus, the election of a leader like Donald Trump, with his nationalistic agenda, to the most powerful position in the world as President of the United States, puts the established global order at risk. It is, therefore, important that all the people with the ability to exercise their democratic right to ensure that they use it responsibly for the benefit of mankind rather than nationalistic interests.