Democracy as a component of Foreign Policy

Article summary: Balancing Interests and Values: India’s struggle with Democracy Promotion, by C. Raja Mohan published in The Washington Quarterly (Summer 2007)

Over the last year there has been a sustained talk about forging an alliance of democracies in the Asia-Pacific region. The main players will be Australia, Japan, USA and India. But this idea has not really picked up and one main reason for it is its anti-China nature. Nonetheless this idea highlighted the fact that ‘democratic polity’ can be a basis foreign policy interaction. This paper by C. Raja Mohan traces the growing importance of democracy as a component of India’s foreign policy. It was ironical that the democracy as a political priority has been largely missing from the foreign policy of the largest democracy. It was the politics of Cold War and the legacy of non-alignment that prevented India from using democracy as value in its interaction with the world.

Cold War Unease

Raja Mohan says “New Delhi’s conspicuous lack of emphasis on democracy in its engagement with the world is largely a consequence of the Cold War’s impact on South Asia and India’s nonaligned impulses in the early years of its independence. It attached more weight to solidarity with fellow developing countries and the defense of its own national security interests without a reference to ideology at the operational level.” He identifies two main factors-external and internal- that prevented India form highlighting the relevance of its democracy to the world.

Externally, the Cold War saw USA backing military ruled-Pakistan and Communist China, while India was moving slowly towards the Soviet camp. Due to the Cold War induced rigid balance of power, India and USA failed to appreciate the common democratic and pluralistic polity which both had. Rather a sense of suspicion and contempt defined the relationship between them, famously termed as ‘estranged democracies’ by Dennis Kux.

Internally, India’s colonial experience was reflected in sustained anti-imperialistic discourse on world affairs. For Nehru, non-alignment was a pragmatic policy to ensure the independence of foreign policy and get the best out of India’s interaction with the world. Hence he never defined non-alignment in anti-West terms. The shift towards Soviet Union and increasing anti-West rhetoric came in the post-Nehru years. In 1970s India also economic populism and left oriented policies which further accentuated the anti-West tone. India began to see itself as a leader of the Third World camp and sought to restructure the West-dominated world.

The shift in 1990s

The end of Cold War caused considerable anxiety in India. At one level, there was the loss of a super-power friend-USSR but more importantly the specter of US dominated uni-polar world loomed large. The initial years saw USA focusing on the Eastern European question. There were also many groups in USA who were raising human rights violation issues in India (in Kashmir and Punjab). The Clinton administration was pushing forward the non-proliferation agenda and this hurt India a lot. And the 1997 Nuclear tests added to the woes.

It was the visit of Clinton in his last year of Presidency in 2000 that marked a paradigm shift in relationship between India and USA. The support of USA to India on the Kargil war issue went a long way in clearing the suspicion.

More importantly the Clinton administration sought India’s help in promoting democracy world wide. But India was not very enthusiastic about this. It rather wanted USA to stop siding with Pakistan on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, and treat New Delhi as an equal with Beijing. Though with limited enthusiasm, India finally agreed to become one of the 10 founding members of the Community for Democracies initiative. The main intention behind this grouping was to “provide an unprecedented opportunity for exchanging experiences, identifying best practices, and formulating an agenda for international cooperation in order to realize democracy’s full potential.”

In its scepticism, India refused to lead an important sub-group-the Caucus of Community of Democracies- of this initiative at the 2000 Warsaw conference. This scepticism is reflected by B. Raman in his paper ‘Community of Democracies’ (2000), “there is no harm in India participating in the forthcoming Warsaw conference on the Community of Democracies … [but] [o]ver-enthusiasm and wishful-thinking that India is now an equal partner of the US in a new jehad for democracy would be unwise. … We should avoid letting ourselves be used by Washington in this venture to advance its interests unless there is a genuine convergence of the interests of the [United States] and India.”

There were three main reasons for India’s scepticism. First it was not ready to give up its traditional manner of mobilising support at the global forum especially the UN. Till now India had always used NAM and the Third World identity to gather support for itself. Second and a more important one, “…New Delhi had not yet resolved the fundamental tension in its own worldview between the notions of sovereignty and intervention. Its own national experience had tended to emphasize the argument that, to be successful, democracy must have a strong internal basis and cannot be enforced from abroad.” (C.Raja Mohan). Finally, the Clinton administration was not too keen on any firm strategic alliance with India in South Asia. The liberal internationalism of the Clinton regime did not totally share India’s enthusiasm of becoming ‘natural allies’ (as the then Prime Minister Vajpayee put it).

It was the Bush administration that took a simpler but strategic view of India’s democracy. Bush looked at India as ‘potential global power’; and reduced (or even dropped) any emphasis on resolution of Kashmir dispute and the issue of non-proliferation. The July 2005 statement which has become famous due the nuclear cooperation component, also made another significant point: India and the United States declared that they “have an obligation to the global community to strengthen values, ideals, and practices of freedom, pluralism, and rule of law” and agreed to assist states seeking to become more open and democratic.” India and US also agreed to support the newly established UN Democracy Fund which has the objective of strengthening democratic institutions and promoting human rights globally.