Customer Reviews

The Case For Democracy: The Power Of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny And Terror

5 star:		(61)
4 star:		(20)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(34)

 

 

Natan Sharansky, a graduate of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, was the English translator for, and English instructor of, the great Russian physicist, Andre Sakharov. The book is dedicated to Sakharov, "A man who proved that with moral clarity and courage, we can change the world" and who said "Regimes that do not respect the rights of their own people will not respect the rights of their neighbors."

Sharansky spent 9 years in Soviet prison and used this time to reflect on the mechanics of tyranny and how such tyranny might be overthrown. He never gave up hope that the Soviet Union would be dismantled. To keep his mind active he played chess in his head-and never lost a match.

At the time of Stalin there were no known dissidents in the Soviet Union simply because the price for dissent was death. With Stalin's death and with successive, slightly more "liberal" regimes, the price for dissent became long prison terms. This allowed several hundred dissidents to emerge, who were willing to risk prison to speak out. Many of these were Soviet Jews seeking to immigrate to the U.S. or Israel; Sharansky was one of these; recall that at that time, no Soviet citizens were allowed to emigrate from the country.

Sharansky divides the populace of a dictatorship into three classes: true believers of the regime, double-thinkers, and dissidents. True believers are usually part of the regime and have a stake in its survival; double-thinkers, which make up the great bulk of the populace, don't agree with the administration but are afraid to speak up; dissidents represent the minority willing to risk job and family to disagree with the regime. The passive support given by double-thinkers to their masters often misleads outsiders into concluding that all-is-well in such countries; just look at the reports made by American correspondents in the USSR from the period of 30's to the 70's. Likewise, Sharansky says, both Iran and Saudi Arabia are steeped in double-think.

It was President Ronald Reagan who had the moral courage to call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and to seek its end. This, together with the Jackson Amendment (which linked most favored nation trade benefits with the U.S. to the right of emigration) and the Helsinki accords, is what ultimately caused the Soviet Union to collapse. Sharansky was then able to leave prison and immigrate to Israel, where he was reunited with his wife. He then rose through the ranks of government to various ministerial positions.

In the book Sharansky extrapolates from his experiences to the world situation of today. He claims there are two basic types of societies: free and fear. Free societies are democratic and allow dissent; fear societies are dictatorial and do not allow dissent. Examples of free societies are those in the West (like the U.S., England, Israel, Australia, etc.). Examples of fear societies are Communist China, North Korea, Iran, and the 22 Arab countries; Arafat's Palestinian Authority was and still is a fear society. Previously Germany and Japan were fear societies, but after World War II they were changed into free societies. Also, Eastern Europe used to be composed of fear societies, but since the fall of the Iron Curtain, they have joined the free camp.

Sharansky is optimistic from his past experience and from history that the remaining fear societies can be freed; tyranny cannot last. He thus disagrees both with the pessimistic conservative "realists" who stress "stability" above all else and with liberals like Jimmy Carter who are willing to negotiate treaties with dictators regardless of the lack of human rights in their countries. Sharansky claims that democracy is not culturally-contingent (citing the Japanese). The vast majority of people love truth and freedom and "freedom is always a winning hand unless we morally equalize the good with the bad, the lies with the truth, and make treaties and compromises with tyrants." The West should stop doing business with tyrants: they can never be trusted and are only interested in their own survival; they are inherently corrupt and won't keep promises. Israel and the rest of the world should devote its energy to bringing democracy to the Palestinian Arabs, rather than pressuring Israel to make more concessions. Sharansky stresses the power of one's inner freedom (which kept him going while in prison), the power of a free society, and the power of the solidarity of the free world. A coalition of free nations (not the UN) should be formed that would turn the right of dissent as a test for international legitimacy.

Sharansky sees a tie between U.S. security and bringing democracy to the Middle East. Democratic countries don't make war on each other. The U.S. should use all possible leverage-moral, political, and financial-to support democracy around the world. "Once the life of double-think and self-censorship is shed, once the brainwashing stops, once freedom is tasted, no people will ever choose to live in fear again." The conditions for real peace in Palestine include real reforms like dismantling the refugee camps, developing private enterprise, and changing the hate-filled curriculum of Palestinian schools. Of course, dictators will resist all change; to keep their power, they constantly need to mobilize their people against alleged external enemies. But if a coalition of security hawks and human rights activists in the West can be reconstituted, the world's dictators can be defeated.

It is a tribute to Sharansky that President Bush invited him to the White House for a private briefing. The President has read the book and has recommended it to many of his cabinet secretaries and foreign leaders. I'm proud to say that I met Sharansky at a recent meeting of the World Affairs Council in Philadelphia, where he signed my copy of the book. I do strongly urge all individuals concerned with foreign policy to read this book. Of course, one minor English quibble might be with Sharansky's use of the term "democracy" when he really means "democratic republic". That's OK; the meaning is clear, regardless.

Freedom, sharansky and Dermer proclaim, is rooted in the right to dissent, to walk into the town square and declare one's views without fear of punishment or reprisal. This they say is the basic right, and societies that do not protect that right can never be reliable partners for peace, and that the democracy that hates is much safer than the dictatorship that loves us.

While there is every reason to doubt that freedom will prevail in the Middle East, this book declares unequivocally that the skeptics are wrong. They the believe that tyranny can be consigned to history's dustbin if the free world stays true to its ideals.

Sometimes I think it takes someone who has lived under a regime like the Soviet Union to remind us of what we have. It's not the false promises made by both Kerry and Bush during the last election, it's that we could have such an election at all.

Natan Sharansky has shown keen insight in this new book into understanding the realities behind the various Middle East and world conflicts. He is a true believer in freedom. He has seen in the past, how, by giving people a taste of freedom their appetites are whetted for more. He proposes applying these same insights that toppled the USSR to the rest of the world.
George W. Bush is reading this book, Condaleza Rice is reading this book. It is a must read for anyone who wants an understanding into Bush's foreign policy for the next four years.

In Sharansky's book I found the words to express the truth I always instinctively believed: that the vast majority of people love truth and freedom, that freedom is always a better choice than tyranny, and that it is not enough to safeguard our own freedoms if we tolerate tyrants along our borders.

THE CASE FOR DEMOCRACY outlines clearly and powerfully the link between freedom and peace/security, tyranny and terror/aggression.

Today our world is caught in a major struggle; it's all around us. I do not consider an exaggeration to call our current stuggle World War III. It's a necessary battle between freedom and tyranny, democracies and dictatorships. Sharansky explains that freedom is always a winning hand unless we agree to morally equalize the good with the bad, the lies with the truth, and to make treaties and compromises with tyrants.

A major premise of Sharansky's: get rid of the stubborn notion that we can do business with tyrants. They can never be trusted and are only interested in one thing: their own survival. They're inherently corrupt and will do anything to stay in power including making innumerable promises they never intend to keep all the while committing stunning atrocities against humankind.

This book describes it all in the context of history, a history that outlines the world's experience of tyranny and freedom over the past fifty years.

I will always be grateful to Mr. Sharansky for this great work.

Sharansky worked as an English interpreter for the great Soviet physicist and dissident Andrei Sakharov. He spent 13 years in a Soviet gulag, often in isolation for months at a time.
For anyone who thinks he is nothing more than a bible-thumping right-wingnut, maybe this statement will shed more light on his character:
"Appeasement is a powerful side effect of democracy. The West's appeasement policy toward the Soviet Union began almost the moment its appeasement policy toward Nazi Germany ended. It didn't end until Ronald Reagan. Democratic leaders need peace to survive. Because democracies have to reflect the will of their people, democratic leaders choose appeasement because anything is preferable to war. Free peoples go to war only when they have no other choice. By the way, this is democracy's great strength as well as its great weakness. Democracies are both so free, so stable, and so prosperous because their people don't want war. Therefore, Western leaders were only continuing in this tradition by believing that the Soviet Union needed to be transformed from a deadly rival into a partner for cooperation. Even President Carter, who understood human rights better than any president before him, always chose to appease the Soviet Union rather than to force it to compete with the West."

No intellectualizing here, just a simple, clear argument for the power of freedom, via democracy, to change our world for the better. Sharansky's personal experience as a political prisoner in the Soviet Union adds tremendous strength and respectability to his argument. He does a superb job of articulating the differences between "free" and "fear" societies and why we need to be reminded of those differences as we fight the War on Terror. In the process, he concisely, but accurately captures the internal weaknesses that threaten to destroy "free" societies as they encounter unprincipled, committed adversaries. The discussion is oftentimes viewed through the struggles of the Cold War, as well as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a refreshingly unsophisticated yet powerful analysis of how a commitment to freedom can change the direction of world events, providing the peace and security we all seek. A necessary read for our times.

This is the work of a genius...not just a person who is a genius at writing, but a person who is a genius at discerning the world and human nature.

The author's thesis is right on: that freedom and democracy are indeed the future for humanity, and that spreading freedom and democracy is the only way to guarantee security for anyone.

Democracies do not make war with each other; never in recorded history has one democracy attacked another.

This book points the way to the long term solution to the problem of terrorism. Absolutely brilliant.

First, I think it is unfortunate that individuals can post their review without having any thought of actually reading the book. Reading some of the anti-Sharansky/Bush reviews you know darn well these people would never even get close to a pro-democracy or pro-capitalist book. Their goal is to stop people from hearing another side of the argument by buying and reading this excellent and well-written book. If you have no mind of your own, read their reviews and don't buy it.

Sharansky, in contrast to these over-indulged American reviewers, has seen first hand the horrors of a totalitarian state compared to a vibrant democracy like Israel and the US. He knows why democracy works at a level that most Americans will never understand. His arguments in favor of democracy are logical, persuasive and comes with a passion that very few authors have. He is also willing to admit that even democracy has its flaws. Still, he convinces us that in the long run it is a superior form of government which if brought to the Middle East and the rest of the countries around the world that are ruled by fear and not the ballot, it would make the world a safer place. Most of us (with the exception of some of the radicals on this site) know in our hearts that he is right.

You need to buy this book for two reasons. One, if you agree with the radical reviewers, you should buy it because you desperately need to hear another side of the story. Two, if you already believe that democracy is the best form of government, this book will provide you excellent material to bring some intellectual support for your point of view. In either case, you cannot go wrong in buying this book.

Enjoy!

Everyone ought to read this splendid book by Natan Sharansky and discover, as he did, the power of one's "inner freedom, the power of a free society, and the power of the solidarity of the free world."

Sharansky starts by insisting on moral clarity. "Societies that do not allow dissent will never protect human rights." Therefore, we must insist on freedom, not support for what seem to be friendly dictators. He points out that the 9/11 attacks were a logical consequence of supporting the stability of a dictatorial Saudi Arabia. And he's convinced that "all peoples desire to be free," and that "freedom anywhere will make the world safer everywhere."

The author explains that unless folks can express their views without fear of reprisals, their society isn't free. Instead, it is a "fear society," in which more and more people are forced to avoid saying what they really think. Fear societies brainwash many people, especially the young, but Sharansky points out that eventually, the constant lies simply won't hold up, the nation becomes uncompetitive, and there is hope for change.

A major criticism of democracy is that extremists will get elected democratically. Sharansky explains that this may be a problem with fear societies in which "elections" are held before they have really reformed. However, a truly free society that opposes you is less of a threat than a fear society that supports you.

The author shows how the Helsinki process led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. And how the USSR, by allowing even a few people to emigrate, lowered the degree of control it had on its subjects.

Sharansky is at his best in describing the Oslo "peace process" fiasco. Here, Arafat was allowed to establish a fear society in the West Bank, and people who said they wanted peace actually thought Arafat needed to be "strengthened!" However, Sharansky is probably correct when he says that peace between the Arabs and Israel is possible only if the Arab world can be convinced to respect human rights.

There is a good description of the Camp David mess, where Barak tried to give up much of Jerusalem (something of great value to the Jews and, as we all got to see, rather little value to the Arabs). Arafat simply turned down this offer and started a war instead. And Barak responded to Arab terror by offering even more concessions. In addition, Barak had no support for such concessions and therefore no authority to try to make them. But the damage done by these proposals is considerable given that they are thought by many to be the starting point for new negotiations.

Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount is put in proper perspective: it was not a provocation, as Israeli ministers and Knesset members had been visiting the Temple Mount regularly. And they do so today.

Sharansky reminds us that many who ask for freedom for West Bank Arabs have it backwards. Under Israeli "occupation," the Arabs could speak their minds, publish their opinions, practice their faith, and learn their own history and culture. They were in a free society. And he points out that Amnesty International is one organization that has succumbed to a lack of moral clarity, as it implies that Israel is a bigger violator of human rights than Saudi Arabia (!), a nation that has no freedom of speech, the press, or religion.

This lack of moral compass extends to those who find an equivalence between terrorists who blow up buses to kill as many civilians as possible and those on the other side who refuse to appease terror. And the author shows that it includes the UN-appointed International Court of Justice, which unjustly ruled against a fence to protect against suicide bombers.

It also extends to those who failed to see the 2002 Israeli operation in Jenin as an "unprecedented commitment to the human rights of a foreign civilian population during wartime." I agree. To me, Israel's behavior was supremely praiseworthy and showed true respect for human rights. And Sharansky points out the statements of some in the media who failed to see it that way, but instead accused Israel of war crimes. Those people clearly demonstrated their total lack of any moral compass.

And it extends to those who boast about the "peace" between Israel and Egypt but overlook the fact that Egypt has since become one of the most anti-Semitic Arab nations.

Sharansky uses three tests to see if anti-Israeli statements are anti-Semitic. The first is "demonization," such as comparing Israeli policies to those of the Germans under "national socialism." The second is "double standards," such as those employed by the United Nations or the International Red Cross. The third is "delegitimization," namely going beyond criticizing Israeli policies to question its right to exist.

In the author's opinion, one-sided Israeli concessions to Arab terrorists will simply strengthen the forces of fear and terror, and make peace more remote. The way he suggests to measure progress towards peace is not how much Israel has appeased the terrorists (I'd regard this as a measure of retreat from peace), but how free Arab society in the West Bank is.

Sharansky concludes that the free world ought not wait for dictatorships to reform, nor get support from international organizations that are dominated by dictatorships, but create a coalition of free nations that would turn the right to dissent as a test for international legitimacy.

Get this book and read it and make sure your friends read it!

Amidst the deafening rancor of moral equivalency and paralyzing relativism, Sharansky sounds the clarion call to moral clarity.

The Case for Democracy shows in stark relief the lasting negative consequences of realpolitik that accelerated under Kissinger and didn't slow until Reagan put his foot down. Sharanksy contends that appeasement of oppressive governments to further policy goals is a dubious practice inherently incapable of achieving lasting benefits. Authoritarian regimes do not enjoy the natural support of constituents, and so require external enemies to distract their restive populations. When these marriages of convenience inevitably break up, the external enemy becomes the democratic nation that appeased them in the first place.

Sharanksy offers a solution based on his experience as a Soviet dissident: democracies need to link support for other nations to their treatment of their citizens. Such was the case when Reagan proceeded to enforce the human rights clauses of the Helsinki accords.

Sharanksy distinguishes between fear societies and free societies and suggests a "park test" to evaluate the difference. If you can say whatever you wish in a public square and not be persecuted, you live in a free society. Significantly, members of a fear society yearn for its reform. Reagan's pressure on the Soviets resulted in greater openness which bolstered dramatically the native striving for freedom in the USSR.

In contrast, Sharanksy presents examples of bad foreign policy. Israel's support for Arafat in the Oslo accords was based on the cynical premise that only a popular dictator could enforce the conditions of a settlement. This resulted in Arafat's incitement of the intifada at the first opportunity. Similarly, in our haste to counter the looming threat of a fundamentalist Iran after the hostage crisis, we supported a secular dictator and newcomer -- Saddam. Today, the results of that decision are plain.

Sharansky's detractors will waste no time in raising the specter of neo-conservative bogeymen in the White House conspiring to support him. They would introduce unhelpful phrases such as "partial democracy". One can only hope that his detractors visit these partial democracies and decry the leadership there. It would be an interesting experiment to mosey into Pakistan and browbeat Musharraf in a public square, or lambast Hamas at the annual terrorist picnic. Detractors will offer ersatz apologies for fear societies, e.g., Palestinians -- recipients of more per-capita foreign aid than any other group in modern history -- are poor, and thus cannot achieve freedom.

No two democracies have ever waged war against each other - a rock-solid observation that does not include "partial democracies" or, as it were, "partial fear" societies. Only by encouraging freedom and reform in repressive societies, Sharansky shows, can long term security be achieved for democratic nations.

The Case for Democracy deserves all the accolades it has received.