21st Century Nation building
Regarding the victory of Hamas-backed candidates in Palestine's recent elections, Russia, the USA, the EU, and the UN issued the following statement:
"Ultimately, those who want to be part of the political process should not engage in armed group or militia activities, for there is a fundamental contradiction between such activities and the building of a democratic State."
My first thought was: What?! After all, of the "Quartet's" (a misleading term, since you're talking like, 100 countries here) members, a large majority have come to the democratic process through self-deterministic violence. Of those that did, a significant portion did so via militia or other irregular groups practicing violence outside of state sanction. Let us examine the cases delving deeper into the past...
The United States was formed via a bloody revolution of discontented British subjects who were certainly an "armed group" and even more certainly a "militia". Luckily for us, a great many of them had military training (even though they fought as irregulars before the Continental Army was quite formed up). Also luckily for us, they were led by wealthy, educated, landowners who subscribed to Enlightenment era ideals. In that era, at least, militia activity was certainly not fundamentally contradictory to the building of a Democratic State.
Where the EU is concerned, we can hardly apply a universal study since Eurpoe's borders have been re-drawn in ink and blood many times over the course of European civilization. But how have they come to democracy? The British road to democracy begins with a group of barons taking London by force, and forcing King John to sign the Magna Carta. In those days, political violence was certainly personal. King John would likely have ended up drawn and quartered himself, if he had not signed it. As it was, he immediately made war to avoid honoring that pact, and his son, Henry the III would end up in the same boat, fighting rebels who eventually enforced the Provisions of Oxford at the point of a sword giving England (and eventually Britain) some semblance of democracy.
When we consider France, it is hard to pinpoint when France became "democratic". Certainly, the tyrannies of the 19th century and the constitutional monarchies couldn't apply. In fact, even Britain's constitutional monarchy could hardly be considered a democracy until well into the 19th and 20th centuries. But in France, even the Third Republic was hardly a representative government (if even a government) until the Nazis swept it off the map. So while France's Fourth Republic, its first truly stable, bloodless democracy was not, in fact, born of rebellion and militiamen, you could hardly say that France's road to democracy is painted any color but red. In fact, it was a longer road than England's or America's. However, compared with the rest of Europe...not so long.
The Freikorps that cemented the Weimar Republic could surely be viewed as Germany's violent promulgators of democracy. Weimar, in some sense, represents Germany's first modern attempt at democracy and though it was short lived, it was absolutely formed through home-grown violence amongst many factions. It's important to note, however, that Weimar's paramilitaries were composed largely of regulars returning from WWI who were trained soldiery, and more accustomed to military life than civilian. This plays some part in what I think in many ways is the "old paradigm" of violent nation-building.
We could cover the rest of the EU in detail, but the point we need to keep in mind here is that while its older members sailed oceans of blood to democratic shores, there are newer members, say the Czech Republic (and its Slovakian sister), have been so busy being caught up by the wars of others, that democracy was relatively bloodless there.
And one of the biggest of the Quartet's legs, Russia, simply decided that they weren't in the mood for a military coup and simply started being a democracy just at the end of the 20th century (eh...is it a democracy?).
Israel, at the crux of this question, was also born of fire. We're talking modern Israel, of course. But 1948 wasn't spent lolling around. It was spent fighting off the various Arabian powers who saw the new state as a group of outsiders that had undeservedly gotten a hold of the Palestinian Mandate from the British. One can't help but acknowledge that modern Israel's nation-building was a violent affair.
Well what changed? When did we go from admiration for rebellions against tyranny to considering self-deterministic violence "fundamentally contradictory" to nation-building? Possibly, part of the "new paradigm" involves much more politically fragmented groups battling each other, having no previous experience with or cultural values of "Western egalitarianism." In essence, we have a chaotic bunch of people fighting for a democracy they do not understand. This can make for extra-bloody results (much like France in the 18th and 19th centuries). I think in an effort to avoid this kind of mishap First-World nations have attempted to prevent violent self-determination. They would appear to have had little success. Unfortunately for them, it's often a case of damned if you do (Haiti, Iraq) and damned if you don't (Rwanda, Sudan). What might be disturbing (or comforting, depending on your viewpoint) is that in eliminating violent self-determination, the First World has eliminated self-determination altogether. The list of successful democracies formed under the guns of a "peacekeeping" force, by indigenous voting, is so far, very short. On the other hand, the history of this doctrine is proportionally short. But if all political power comes from the barrel of a gun, then do we not invalidate the political process altogether by introducing First World armies into the picture to begin with? How self-deterministic is a democratic process that is forcibly grown under the threat of force from other nations? Is it any more legitimate than a democratic process born of years of bloody revolution? This is a fairly old argument, with many facets. But its worth revisiting now that more often than not, nations are built by other nations.
Secretary Rice elaborated on the Quartet's resolution by setting forth that armed groups violate the State's "monopoly of force" which is one of the fundamental keystones in the justification of kleptocratic statehood (or any sort of statehood, for that matter). But in the era of provision governments and UN councils, the "state" Rice refers to is certainly not the Palestinian authority. It's the Quartet. Even if that's not her intention, for the purposes of violence, there are only two factors in this situation: Hamas which is the "armed group" and the Quartet (or the Western powers, or World Government, or what have you), which is "the state". The Palestinian Authority has never had an effective monopoly of force. Where does that leave practioners of World Government (namely the members of the Quartet)? It's tempting to apply Federalist ideals to world government but its never been that way. The truth is that there has NEVER been an effective body of world government, and the members of the Quartet do not have the experience, and perhaps not the legitimacy to enact one. We've never been able to govern a large body of fragmented, smaller entities without resorting a strong central government (which, lets face it, is a bit unrealistic). While there's no answers to be had here, one thing is for certain: Our standards for nation-building are inconsistently applied. And while nation-building without violence is a lofty ideal, we, as first-worlders have not put it into practice in a fair and universal manner. Rather, we've done it (or not) as it suits us, for our own advantages.
"Ultimately, those who want to be part of the political process should not engage in armed group or militia activities, for there is a fundamental contradiction between such activities and the building of a democratic State."
My first thought was: What?! After all, of the "Quartet's" (a misleading term, since you're talking like, 100 countries here) members, a large majority have come to the democratic process through self-deterministic violence. Of those that did, a significant portion did so via militia or other irregular groups practicing violence outside of state sanction. Let us examine the cases delving deeper into the past...
The United States was formed via a bloody revolution of discontented British subjects who were certainly an "armed group" and even more certainly a "militia". Luckily for us, a great many of them had military training (even though they fought as irregulars before the Continental Army was quite formed up). Also luckily for us, they were led by wealthy, educated, landowners who subscribed to Enlightenment era ideals. In that era, at least, militia activity was certainly not fundamentally contradictory to the building of a Democratic State.
Where the EU is concerned, we can hardly apply a universal study since Eurpoe's borders have been re-drawn in ink and blood many times over the course of European civilization. But how have they come to democracy? The British road to democracy begins with a group of barons taking London by force, and forcing King John to sign the Magna Carta. In those days, political violence was certainly personal. King John would likely have ended up drawn and quartered himself, if he had not signed it. As it was, he immediately made war to avoid honoring that pact, and his son, Henry the III would end up in the same boat, fighting rebels who eventually enforced the Provisions of Oxford at the point of a sword giving England (and eventually Britain) some semblance of democracy.
When we consider France, it is hard to pinpoint when France became "democratic". Certainly, the tyrannies of the 19th century and the constitutional monarchies couldn't apply. In fact, even Britain's constitutional monarchy could hardly be considered a democracy until well into the 19th and 20th centuries. But in France, even the Third Republic was hardly a representative government (if even a government) until the Nazis swept it off the map. So while France's Fourth Republic, its first truly stable, bloodless democracy was not, in fact, born of rebellion and militiamen, you could hardly say that France's road to democracy is painted any color but red. In fact, it was a longer road than England's or America's. However, compared with the rest of Europe...not so long.
The Freikorps that cemented the Weimar Republic could surely be viewed as Germany's violent promulgators of democracy. Weimar, in some sense, represents Germany's first modern attempt at democracy and though it was short lived, it was absolutely formed through home-grown violence amongst many factions. It's important to note, however, that Weimar's paramilitaries were composed largely of regulars returning from WWI who were trained soldiery, and more accustomed to military life than civilian. This plays some part in what I think in many ways is the "old paradigm" of violent nation-building.
We could cover the rest of the EU in detail, but the point we need to keep in mind here is that while its older members sailed oceans of blood to democratic shores, there are newer members, say the Czech Republic (and its Slovakian sister), have been so busy being caught up by the wars of others, that democracy was relatively bloodless there.
And one of the biggest of the Quartet's legs, Russia, simply decided that they weren't in the mood for a military coup and simply started being a democracy just at the end of the 20th century (eh...is it a democracy?).
Israel, at the crux of this question, was also born of fire. We're talking modern Israel, of course. But 1948 wasn't spent lolling around. It was spent fighting off the various Arabian powers who saw the new state as a group of outsiders that had undeservedly gotten a hold of the Palestinian Mandate from the British. One can't help but acknowledge that modern Israel's nation-building was a violent affair.
Well what changed? When did we go from admiration for rebellions against tyranny to considering self-deterministic violence "fundamentally contradictory" to nation-building? Possibly, part of the "new paradigm" involves much more politically fragmented groups battling each other, having no previous experience with or cultural values of "Western egalitarianism." In essence, we have a chaotic bunch of people fighting for a democracy they do not understand. This can make for extra-bloody results (much like France in the 18th and 19th centuries). I think in an effort to avoid this kind of mishap First-World nations have attempted to prevent violent self-determination. They would appear to have had little success. Unfortunately for them, it's often a case of damned if you do (Haiti, Iraq) and damned if you don't (Rwanda, Sudan). What might be disturbing (or comforting, depending on your viewpoint) is that in eliminating violent self-determination, the First World has eliminated self-determination altogether. The list of successful democracies formed under the guns of a "peacekeeping" force, by indigenous voting, is so far, very short. On the other hand, the history of this doctrine is proportionally short. But if all political power comes from the barrel of a gun, then do we not invalidate the political process altogether by introducing First World armies into the picture to begin with? How self-deterministic is a democratic process that is forcibly grown under the threat of force from other nations? Is it any more legitimate than a democratic process born of years of bloody revolution? This is a fairly old argument, with many facets. But its worth revisiting now that more often than not, nations are built by other nations.
Secretary Rice elaborated on the Quartet's resolution by setting forth that armed groups violate the State's "monopoly of force" which is one of the fundamental keystones in the justification of kleptocratic statehood (or any sort of statehood, for that matter). But in the era of provision governments and UN councils, the "state" Rice refers to is certainly not the Palestinian authority. It's the Quartet. Even if that's not her intention, for the purposes of violence, there are only two factors in this situation: Hamas which is the "armed group" and the Quartet (or the Western powers, or World Government, or what have you), which is "the state". The Palestinian Authority has never had an effective monopoly of force. Where does that leave practioners of World Government (namely the members of the Quartet)? It's tempting to apply Federalist ideals to world government but its never been that way. The truth is that there has NEVER been an effective body of world government, and the members of the Quartet do not have the experience, and perhaps not the legitimacy to enact one. We've never been able to govern a large body of fragmented, smaller entities without resorting a strong central government (which, lets face it, is a bit unrealistic). While there's no answers to be had here, one thing is for certain: Our standards for nation-building are inconsistently applied. And while nation-building without violence is a lofty ideal, we, as first-worlders have not put it into practice in a fair and universal manner. Rather, we've done it (or not) as it suits us, for our own advantages.