7.3 - imposing liberalism

what does it mean to impose liberalism

• Imposition (or imposing) means forcing something on people whether they want it or not. 

•  Liberalism has been imposed on people at various points in history, sometimes with negative consequences.

  • To strongly encourage them to accept liberal values

    • Rule of law

    • Protection of private property

    • Capitalist economic ideas

    • Individual rights

    • Fair elections

    • Checks and balances on government

pros of embracing liberalism

• more rights & freedoms (humanitarian)

• economic:

  • establish liberal economic institutions to strengthen economy (improve standard of living)

  • build trade relationships

peace – respect for different values, trading relationships (Golden Arches Theory, Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention)

reasons for imposing liberalism

1. Humanitarian

Additionally, wouldn’t having trading relationships make war less likely, and lead to a more peaceful world?

2. National Interest

These ideas are a slippery slope… (paternalism).

whats paternalism

the practice of an authority or individual restricting a person's or group's freedom or autonomy. It is justified by the claim that the authority knows what is best for the individuals and acts to protect them from harm or promote their well-being, even if it is against their will

cons of imposing liberalism

• Many states that are not already liberal have not gone through the same evolution we did with the Enlightenment

  • Rule of law – instead: the government and their friends are above the law

  • Protection of private property instead: gov. take property any time

  • Rights (education, freedom of expression) instead: only rights for elite

  • Fair elections/checks and balances on government instead: rulers want to protect power (controlled participation)

what is illiberalism

when a country claims to be liberal (democracy -elections) but lack other institutions like independent courts = not truly liberal

the pattern of liberal states (that allows lib to flourish)

• an agreement between the governed and the government about how rights will be protected

• constitutions and courts to protect rights

• respect and trust in institutions

• respect for elections (which are only one piece of the democratic puzzle)

• a valid and open education system.  Too often schools have been used as a tool for propaganda and assimilation

• the money to pay for these things

The trouble is that many countries have not gone through the same process toward liberalism.  A failure to implement liberal values leads to illiberalism or states that claim to be liberal because they have elections, but act in illiberal ways

liberalism imposed on europe after WWI

President Wilson insisted that Germany and its allies had to agree to establish democratic governments as a condition of the peace treaties.  His view was that democracy and self-determination had to be established in Europe as a basis for peace

obviously this did not work.

war as a means of imposing liberalism

It may seem that an armed overthrow might be the best way of getting rid of a dictator, but too often, it only results in death, destruction and a heavy economic toll for everyone involved.

Citizens don’t welcome their new democracy; they might lament the loss of their old leader, because at least the power was still on….

imposing liberalism for national interest

• Today, protecting national interests in our increasingly globalizing world is an important part of American foreign policy.  

• Economic self-interest- exporting liberal democracy has both economic and security benefits.

  • If liberalism can be fostered in a country where it is not present, it will benefit the economy of the country, which will  in turn encourage trade with other countries, including liberal democracies.

  • Imposing liberalism will make the world a safer place- justifies the “war on Terror”

imposing liberalism for humanitarian reasons

• Some people believe that liberal countries should not tolerate non-liberal countries that deny their citizens’ human rights.  Is intervention justified in these cases?

  • Does not always guarantee improved living conditions for the citizens of that country.  

• The U.S.-led war on terror was partly based on human rights issues.  Under the Taliban, Afghan women were denied basic human rights, and Saddam Hussein’s reign over Iraq was characterized by fear, crimes against humanity, and brutal torture tactics.

examples of imposing liberalism

1.  South Africa

2. Afghanistan

3. Iraq

south africa and apartheid (imposing liberalism)

• Apaprtheid = keep apart (tribes, Blacks and Whites)

• Nelson Mandela

  • Tried to use the courts, turned to violent protest

  • Arrested

    • Conditions in prisons

    • Bring attention to conditions in Black communities

• International pressure

  • Sanctions

• End apartheid

  • Violence

  • Government corruption

afghanistan (imposing liberalism)

• Pre-9/11 – The world was wary of Taliban government (it grew out of the Soviet retreat in 1989)

• Post 9/11 – The world agrees Taliban must be removed from power and democracy established (national interest)

  • War on Terror (NATO)

• Outcome – high death toll, illiberal actions

  • Karzai government corrupt, but the best option for first ”liberal” government—tribal society

  • Control of extremist groups—education, violence during elections

• Some success

  • Greater rights for women, building infrastructure- all of which came tumbling down in September of 2020

Iraq (imposing liberalism)

• Pre-emptive strike (faulty information on WMD)

  • Violation of international law, rejected by UN

• Consequences

  • War – high death toll, damage to infrastructure

  • Sectarian violence: Sunni/Shi’ite civil war (2006)

  • Elections—majority rule = 80 parties all based on ethnic loyalties, Shi’ite majority

  • Rise of ISIS due to alienation of Sunni leaders

Impact on reputation of liberal democracies        

illiberalness in china

• One child policy

• Capital punishment, labor camps

• Sweatshops

• Environmental damage

• Intellectual property rights

• Worker’s rights

• Freedom of speech (Google, prisoners of conscience)

• Tibet

• Uighur Muslim persecution

• lack of due process(Michaels)

should we impose liberalism on the Arab Spring

• Tunisia – was moving towards a truly liberal society

  • Terrorist attacks to try to prevent this

• Libya - 2011 UN agreement to use any means necessary to protect civilians rebelling Were we trying to overthrow the government = imposing a revolution?

  • Did Gadhafi's reputation influence our willingness to use violence?

• Egypt – democratically elected gov started to become illiberal so another revolution - put military back in power

  • Just as oppressive as before (imprison anyone who supported the democratically elected gov)

• Syria - why UN support for rebels in Libya but not here

  • Refugee crisis

should strong liberal nations take over failed states

• Regions of the world where chaos reigns

  • Haiti

  • Somalia

• Should UN (or another powerful institution/ country) take over the region until they prove that they can rule themselves?

  • Post-WW II – what was the outcome of the Four Powers taking this stance in Europe and Japan?

the imposition of liberalism om canada’s aboriginal peoples

Despite Canada’s strong international reputation for protecting rights and freedoms, our history does include illiberal treatment of FNMI peoples.  These actions specifically include

• Indian Act—meant to preserve treaty rights, used to promote gov control

• Land claims abuses

• Abolishing cultural practices such as the Sundance and Potlatch

• Residential Schools

• Sixties Scoop

first contact with the aboriginal peoples of canada

• As we know, contact between First Nations in Canada and European settlers presented conflicting worldviews and ideologies.  Most European settlers brought with them liberal values and beliefs, while many First Nations believed in collectivist ideas

• Subsequently, values of liberalism would be imposed on Aboriginals in an attempt to assimilate them into “mainstream” Canadian society

• By 1812, European settlers outnumbered Aboriginal peoples by a ratio of 10 to 1 in eastern Canada.

conflicting ideologies between the aboriginal peoples and european settlers

• To Aboriginals, a person does not own land – he or she is part of it, in much the same way as he or she is part of a family or tribe.  The land and the people essentially belong to one another.

• For the Europeans, Treaties were often ignored because the Europeans viewed themselves as superior to the Aboriginals, so their land could be taken without bothering with treaties.  Many believed that it was their duty to assimilate the Aboriginal peoples into European religion and culture

treaties between aboriginals and europeans

• British insisted on written and signed treaties as they did not trust oral agreements and traditions.  language barrier that required translators.  The translators were often not honest or did not totally understand the agreements themselves.  Land ownership had no equivalent in First Nations culture.

• Eurocentrism (European superiority) called the legal status of the treaties into question, despite the written documents. Europeans believed that the First Nations were not sovereign nations and ceased to consider the treaties valid.

the indian act of 1876

• This act was used by government to control the behavior of First Nations peoples and remove their traditions and customs.  They were encouraged to leave their Indian status to become “full” citizens of Canada.  They were seen as “children” who needed to be taken care of

The Indian Act took away their collective rights through its policies of assimilation into the more individualistic liberal society

white paper vs red paper

the white paper: 1969 – The White Paper proposed by Trudeau– sought to abolish all treaties between Canada and First Nations.  Trudeau and his gov’t failed to consult with First Nations and Inuit.  The paper had a hostile reception on their part – further assimilation.

the red paper: 1969 – Aboriginals took a stand against assimilation by publishing the Red Paper, which objected to what they saw as the government’s attempt to impose liberalism on them through the White Paper

residential schools

• One of the major methods of assimilation was the residential school system.

• Under this system, Aboriginals were to be educated in European culture, science, history, language and religion with Aboriginal culture being phased out.

• Conditions at the schools were terrible.  

• Aboriginal students were forced to attend; they were often moved from their families and housed in walled residences.

• If they spoke their native languages or practiced their own religion, they were beaten.

• They were not allowed to miss class, even if they were severely ill, and this contributed to the spread of diseases such as tuberculosis among the students.

• In severe cases, students were subjected to sexual abuse.

• These experiences disrupted and damaged the students, their families, and their communities.

• The last residential school in Canada closed in 1996

• In 1998, the government acknowledged the excesses of the residential school system and began the process of reconciliation and resolution with those who had been forced to attend.  

• In 2008, in an address that was broadcast nationally, Prime Minister Stephen Harper formally apologized for the creation of the residential school system.

the sixties scoop

The Sixties Scoop is the catch-all name for a series of policies enacted by provincial child welfare authorities starting in the mid-1950s, which saw thousands of Indigenous children taken from their homes and families, placed in foster homes, and eventually adopted out to white families from across Canada and the United States. These children lost their names, their languages, and a connection to their heritage. Sadly, many were also abused and made to feel ashamed of who they were.