POMED Notes: “Democracy Promotion Under Obama: Revitalization or Retreat?”

On Thursday, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hosted a panel event highlighting Thomas Carothers’ recent paper: “Democracy Promotion Under Obama: Finding a Way Forward.” The panel asked, “Has the Obama administration succeeded in crafting a line that effectively balances U.S. interests and ideals? Or have they – as some critics charge – pulled back too far in supporting democracy abroad?” The main speaker was Carothers, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the founder and director of the Democracy and Rule of Law Program. The commentators were David Kramer, president of Freedom House, and Jeremy Weinstein, associate professor of political science and senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. The panel was moderated by James Traub, a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine.

For full event notes, continue reading below. Or, click here for the PDF

Carothers gave an overview of his report, which is written at the end of every presidential administration. He said that Obama’s policy on democracy has evolved through three phases. The first was to retreat from the subject altogether, attempt to instill some positive changes in the rhetoric as it related to democracy, and “let the topic cool off after the Bush administration.” The second was to increase the level of engagement both domestically and internationally, integrating democracy into his speeches and policy formulation and initiating multilateral missions. Carothers described this phase as “the pendulum starting to swing back.” The third phase came with the Arab Spring, which forced the administration to react and make policies in response to the uprisings. Carothers then discussed the many similarities and differences he has observed between the Obama administration and the two or three administrations that came before him. Although the current administration is largely similar to those prior, some of the more distinctive qualities are that Obama’s personal stance on democracy policy is ambiguous, the reputation of American democracy is lower than in the past thereby making democracy promotion efforts abroad less credible, and there does not seem to be an overarching “transformative narrative” that is driving democracy policy. Based on the revitalization of democracy this administration fostered, the decrease in hostility toward American democracy abroad, and the initiatives that were brought about during the Arab Spring, Carothers concluded that the Obama administration was not retreating from democracy.

In response, Kramer said, “Carothers let off the President too lightly” and that he believes that Obama “came up short.” Second, contrary to what Carothers found, there is a transformative narrative: the Arab Spring. He compared Obama’s policies to those of Bush, and stated that Bush had set out a clear vision and stance on democracy, and backed off from the topic after Hamas got elected. On the other hand, he said, he views Obama’s administration as employing an “ABB approach” – Anything But Bush. Because of this approach, the President retreated from democracy policy to the point that it even gave activists abroad a sense of confusion. For instance, Kramer spoke about a poster he had seen in a photo from the Iran Green Movement, in which an activist held up a poster asking which side Obama was on. Although Kramer understood the need for a bottom–up grassroots movement toward democracy, he concluded that the administration should not be so far removed as to cause confusion among publics abroad. He added that the U.S. needs to show an elevated level of interest in issues of human rights and democracy.

Weinstein said that in evaluating any administration’s actions and policies, it is important to put it into context. He also listed five characteristics and accomplishments of this administration that he believes will stand out in historical retrospect as distinctive. In addition to the ones that Carothers mentioned in his paper, Weinstein also discussed the role of technology and the Internet in adding momentum to the Arab Spring movements, and the gravitation toward international cooperation and collaboration in facing common world challenges. He also detailed the limitations of the U.S. response to the Arab Spring: the continued fear of what democracy in Arab nations could produce, the belief that U.S. pressure can’t actually make a difference in democratization, and that there are other interests for the U.S. beyond spreading democracy and sometimes there are fears that those other interests will be compromised as a result of pushing democracy. However, he did conclude on an optimistic note, reminding the audience that compared to three years ago, there are less authoritarian dictators in power, and there are more assertive democracies around the world.

In response to a question on whether or not the U.S. should threaten to withhold funding from the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) in response to the most recent attacks on NGOs and civil society, Carothers commented that though the U.S. cannot immediately cut off all funding, it does need to take a strong stance against the SCAF’s recent actions. Kramer added that the solution cannot be extreme, but rather a balance. Cutting off all funding is too extreme, but suggesting that as a possibility may be enough to get the SCAF’s attention. Additionally, Kramer pointed out that U.S. authorities should be careful when speaking about the SCAF’s attack on civil society, and the U.S. needs to project a consistent message that it does not condone those actions.