Dignity and democracy

In the Washington Post, David Ignatius is making the case that 'Dignity is the issue that vexes billions of people around the world, not democracy.' The case comes apart as quickly as the thought arrives that without democracy there is no real dignity for those who are merely subjects of the will of others.

What sort of dignity can a person have if they have no effective say, no reliable influence, over decisions that may affect them vitally? What sort of dignity is it to be told what you may do, how you may live, that there are things you may not read, on the decision of some small group of others? It is no accident that coming of age is so widely regarded as a crucial human transition, and that to say of an adult's condition or status that she is like a child, is being infantilized, is a pejorative usage, the human love of children notwithstanding.

Ignatius writes:

[W]hen people hear President Bush preaching about democratic values, it often comes across as a veiled assertion of American power. The implicit message is that other countries should be more like us - replacing their institutions, values and traditions with ours. We mean well, but people feel disrespected. The bromides and exhortations are a further assault on their dignity.

Try, just for a moment, to forget George Bush. Instead, think of the very the best (small d) democrat you know, not preaching about democratic values but merely arguing for them, commending them. That's not a message of power; it's an argument and a commendation. Is the message of it that other (presumably non-democratic) countries should 'replac[e] their institutions, values and traditions with ours'? Yes and no. Yes, just in so far as it's an argument for democracy. But so what? Argument is fine, isn't it? Exchange of opinion. Attempting to persuade. No, in that the message isn't for the replacement of all the cultural values and traditions of others. For one thing, they may be expected to have some democratic values of their own, indigenous to their country. For another, there is not one single authoritative model of democracy - even amongst the democracies. This is a well-known fact. Why should it be any different with respect to newly democratizing states? These same observations take care of what Ignatius says when he says of Condoleezza Rice:

When she talks about the universality of American values, she carries the special resonance of an African American girl from Birmingham, Ala., who witnessed the struggle for democracy in a segregated America. But she also conveys an American arrogance, a message that when it comes to good governance, it's our way or the highway.

Nope. It's just some suffiently democratic way or other. Because the case comes apart of itself, Ignatius can't help but contribute to taking it apart. So, he refers us to...

[David] Kilcullen, a brilliant Australian military officer who helped reshape U.S. strategy in Iraq toward the bottom-up precepts of counterinsurgency.

Bottom-up? What's that all about? He also cites these words of Zbigniew Brzezinski's:

In today's restless world, America needs to identify with the quest for universal human dignity, a dignity that embodies both freedom and democracy but also implies respect for cultural diversity.

He said it: it isn't 'dignity, not democracy', but a dignity that embraces democracy (and freedom) within culturally specific forms.

'People', Ignatius says, 'don't like to be told what to do by outsiders.' But which people, which outsiders? These aren't monolithic entities. Some of those going under the name of 'people' are themselves fighting for democracy within their countries, and they look to outsiders for support.

He says, apropos the congressional resolution on the Armenian genocide:

I agree with the congressional resolution, but I know that this is a problem that Turks must resolve. They are imprisoned in a past that they have not yet been able to accept. Our hectoring makes it easier for them to retreat deeper into denial.
.....
But if foreign governments try to make people do the right thing, it won't work. They have to do it for themselves.

As generally, yes, people have to do it for themselves. But this does not entail that criticism from without is illegitimate, or else where would that have left the anti-apartheid movement and where would it leave Amnesty International?