Panel 3: Modernity Without Democracy

Time: Monday, October 13, 2008

By Anni Zhu

Keynote speaker and former Secretary General of the Commonwealth Don McKinnon opened the discussion by defining democracy as “access to most things by most citizens,” and a modern society as having four key components: an accountable state, an open economy, free civil society and a responsible international community. Besides democracy and development being two sides of the same coin, he emphasized choice as a fundamental component of both modernity and democracy: “You can’t have a truly modern society without development. Modernity is about choice, an open environment: if choice was nonexistent for people, modern living would not be in their grasp.”

Similarly, Czech Ambassador to Israel Michael Žantovský focused on an “open environment” where freedom of communication is crucial. Defining modernity as the “unbridled and unrestrained communication of ideas,” Žantovský stated that most of these ideas can only flourish in a liberal democracy that enables the boundaries of thought to be pushed further.

European Foundation for Democracy Senior Fellow Irshad Manji also touched upon the idea of freedom of communication speaking about her book, The Trouble with Islam Today, available online as a free download to the Arab world after being unable to find a publisher. She then talked about how those with Internet access distributed it to their friends to spread the idea and incite discussion. “This just goes to show what a hunger, what a deep thirst exists among the new generation of Muslims, not just for modernity, in terms of being wired and having access, but also in terms of democracy. Islam has the raw materials to realize this vision” of a stable democracy, but Muslims must first make a choice, she concluded.

Focusing on the correlation between economic growth and a country’s governmental structure, former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov cited Russia as an example of how authoritarian rule has worked against modernity.

Czech journalist Tomáš Etzler, who has spent the last few years in China, was the only panelist to disagree with the correlation between modernity and democracy. He pointed out that China is rapidly modernizing, yet there is no movement—from the citizens or the government—towards democracy. The Chinese are focused instead on the freedom to make money.

The final two panelists—Project on Transitional Democracies President Bruce Jackson and political philosopher and sociologist Ashis Nandy—both chose to tackle, instead, the changing definitions of democracy and its implications. Jackson cited a need to redefine the traditional idea of democracy, which is currently being challenged by world examples, pointing out Ukraine in particular. “Much of what we want to know is basically unteachable. It’s like the relationship between sex and love: modernity is physics in existence; it’s going to take care of itself and is what it is. Democracy is the special and exceptional case,” Jackson said.

Nandy noted that the criteria for being a democracy have become more and more basic, so that countries that are not truly democracies can be called such today: “We have exploited the narrowness [of the definition of democracy] to sanctify, or at least give a kind of grudging legitimacy, to every country that claims it. Democracy is no longer an end in itself—we claim ‘democracy’ is only an instrument to reach our version of a good lie.”

Despite their differences, all delegates agreed on the importance of modernity and development in the current world.