Supporting democracy is in our national interest

For more than half a century, the United States has made supporting democracy and human liberty around the world an integral part of our foreign policy. As we mark the International Day of Democracy, we’d do well to recall that this has never been just an altruistic exercise. From the Marshall Plan to the present day, America’s democracy assistance has been grounded in the recognition that stable, prosperous democracies are not only good for the citizens they empower, they’re in the best interests of U.S. citizens.

{mosads}Sadly, those of us who believe in President Reagan’s mission to “foster the infrastructure of democracy” seem to have done a poor job of conveying the benefits of this important work to the American public. A recent Pew Research Center survey reports that 57 percent of registered voters think the U.S. should deal with its own problems and let the rest of the world take care of their own challenges. Perhaps that’s one reason we’ve heard some politicians in both parties argue in favor of scaling back our international commitments to better focus on problems at home. 

But what if Americans realized that global engagement and democracy assistance actually helps us avoid these very challenges? The evidence is actually pretty clear. Free, truly democratic nations — those that respect the voices and values of their people — are more prosperous, stable, reliable allies. They possess many of the characteristics and conditions that history shows are the keys to strong economic growth, making them better trading partners and more appealing targets for investment and commerce. Vibrant democracies are less likely to produce terrorists, spread weapons of mass destruction or otherwise act aggressively.

All of that serves our interests as well as theirs, right?

Conversely, authoritarian regimes are more likely to sow instability. They often act aggressively — physically or digitally — toward nations outside their borders. In some cases, they seek to exploit their neighbors for strategic purposes, or they may aim to intimidate them into changing their policies. They actually need to pressure their neighbors into restricting democracy and liberty, because otherwise they would have to explain to their own citizens why they can’t enjoy the same rights and freedoms as their neighbors.

Authoritarianism breeds frustration and despair, leaving populations ripe for exploitation by extremists. Perhaps the most significant threat lies in the nature of authoritarianism itself: States that do not listen to their citizens are often incapable of meeting their aspirations, and are more prone to crises and societal breakdown. They may have the veneer of solidity, but in most cases, this merely hides simmering frustrations that have been forced underground. A puncture in the surface can unleash a torrent of resistance, reducing a seemingly stable regime to chaos.

American interests, and global interests, are best served when sustainable stability exists — which derives from systems that respond to the needs and aspirations of their citizens. That is not to argue that the U.S. should try to convince everyone to adopt American-style democracy, or impose it from above. But in countries ranging from Nigeria or Sri Lanka, where local leaders and activists are reaching out for assistance as they shape their own democratic path, we should stand ready to help with the tools, ideas and resources to bolster their efforts.

Reagan made his historic 1982 speech on democracy and liberty to the progenitor of modern democracy, the British Parliament. He viewed democracy not just as an American goal, but the “inalienable and universal right of all human beings,” and called on the community of democracies to step up to the plate. Motivated by the same recognition of the strategic value of democracy, countries ranging from the United Kingdom to South Korea have become generous supporters of the democracy cause. Even young democracies such as Mongolia — which transitioned from a Soviet satellite just 25 years ago — are actively supporting other countries as they build their democratic capacity.

Yet Reagan also believed that American leadership was essential if democracy is to take root around the world. He hoped that Americans would recognize that all people, regardless of their culture, race or religion, deserve the opportunity to forge their own paths and hold their governments to account.

Enabling people to have a voice in their government gives them a stake in their own society and their future. It creates hope that life can improve, blunting the appeal of extremism and diminishing the desperation of the dispossessed. America’s leadership in this work isn’t just about helping people to live better lives; it is driven by the hardheaded recognition that democratic development in others is good for our own national interests. To withdraw from our longstanding role as a leader and facilitator of democratic development would not merely be turning away from a moral good — it would actually make the world more dangerous, which undermines our own security.

Green is president of the International Republican Institute, former U.S. ambassador to Tanzania and former member of congress representing Wisconsin’s 8th District.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.