![]() |
Andranik Migranian |
By
MARTIN SIEFF
It was
November 1989, and I was in Moscow accompanying a delegation of senior Washington Times editors. They were eager to
gloat over the coming collapse of communism with their own eyes.
We were in the shabby, very
much the worse for wear, unpretentious little office of the chief ideologist of
the Institute for the Study of Systems of Socialism. His name was Andranik
Migranian. Today he is a wealthy and successful man, running a think tank in
New York, and has been consulted by Russian leaders for more than 20 years.
For all his stature in
Russia and his practical professional success, Migranian remains almost unknown
to the American media. His influence in the halls of Congress, the White House,
and the State Department is zero. In those days he was an enthusiastic champion
of democracy for Russia. But he believed that it would take at least 20 years,
maybe more. A free market would have to be created first. Migranian argued
passionately that the worst way to create democracy was to create it instantly
from a standing start.
That’s the same mistake the United States has made in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s the mistake we—following Thomas Friedman—are making in assuming that the Arab Spring will create any stable, Western-style democracies in the Middle East. It’s the mistake Friedman and the presidents naïve enough to believe him have made in sacrificing American jobs to build the Chinese economy. They all believe in Instant Democracy. Just add hot water, like instant coffee, and it will come.
Back in 1989, Migranian
already knew that idea was rubbish. He had studied world history. He knew all
about the birth of successful democracies and free markets across Europe, North
America, and Asia going back hundreds of years. And his conclusions were
simple:
First, you cannot create a successful democracy if a successful free market and a large middle class enjoying basic property rights and the rule of law do not already exist.
Second, the system of checks and balances in any democratic society allows existing interest groups to prevent a free market from emerging. So there is no free market to generate the overall rising levels of prosperity and optimism across society that any democracy needs to survive and flourish.
Third, it takes a tough, centralized authoritarian government or a strong, self-confident oligarchy to create the conditions for a free market to emerge. Only a strong central government can impose a free market and prevent the less efficient elements of society from blocking it.
However, once the free market is created and starts to function, a new, wider, stronger middle class will emerge. Over a period of one to three generations—from about 20 to 100 years—democracy will emerge. It won’t be easy, there may be years of frustration, of struggle and learning. But when democracy does come, as it has to nations from Poland to South Korea, it’s the real thing. It works.
Think about it: if Migranian
is right, then Thomas Friedman, Charles Krauthammer, Peter Beinart, and the
entire, endlessly chattering tribes of neoconservatives and neoliberals are all
wrong. You cannot expect democracies to emerge fully formed whenever a
repressive or even mildly authoritarian but just plain corrupt government falls
to revolution and popular protests.
Back in Moscow in 1989, I
already recognized the original, radical nature of what Migranian was saying. I
often thought of his ideas during the next 20 years when I traveled widely
across Europe, the Middle East, and Asia for the Washington
Times and United
Press International. I personally witnessed where new democratic societies were
emerging and where they obviously were not.
I also recognized that
Migranian’s model perfectly explained the conditions under which Britain
emerged to global greatness as the first major industrialized nation in the
18th century. It explained the pattern of how successful democracies emerged in
most other major countries as well.
Migranian’s model explained
why democracy collapsed in Weimar Germany in the 1930s. For 15 years after
World War I, the long-suffering German people were hit by one national calamity
after another. An idealistic, weak, and ineffective democracy discredited the
whole idea of democracy among the German people. Instead, the failed Weimar
experiment prepared the way for them to accept the monstrous dictatorship of
Adolf Hitler. Their parents would never have swallowed Hitler’s evil lies in
the stable, tolerant, and largely democratic imperial Germany before 1914.
In the years that followed,
Migranian incurred the rage of Russian liberal democrats. They accused him of
being a secret fascist. But the course of Russian history in the 1990s and
early 2000s proved him to be a prophet.
Under the hapless guidance
of U.S. President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, and Secretary of the
Treasury Lawrence Summers, Russia embarked on an enormous privatization
program. It sounded great.
But in reality this meant
that control of the vast resources of the Russian Federation—even without the
other 14 former Soviet republics, still the largest country in the world—fell
into the hands of enterprising buccaneers. They became known in the West as
Russia’s new oligarchs.
Over the past decade some of
those oligarchs have fallen. Quite a few have fled Russia. They have been
replaced by new oligarchs known as the siloviki. These new guys have
close ties to Vladimir Putin.
But Russia never developed a
truly free market. And it didn’t develop a successful democracy either.
Migranian expected this. Back in November 1989, he prophesied to me and to the
visiting Washington Times editors that Russian democracy under
Boris Yeltsin would fail. Yeltsin, he said, was going to create a weak
liberal-democratic government. It would bungle the creation of a real free
market. The new political system would be unsuccessful. It would throw Russia’s
150 million people into dire poverty. Its failure would discredit true
democracy. Everything worked out exactly the way he said it would.
No comments:
Post a Comment