Dilemma of national democracies

Why do the top democracies of the U.S., the U.K., France and Germany support implicit or explicit coup and unconstitutional changes by supporting street movements? Why does being a democratic country not guarantee behaving according to democratic principles and ideas in international affairs? On the face of the negative approaches of Western democracies in Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Turkey, Chile, Colombia and other places, we should consider the reason for this problem. Modern political history is the history of nation-states. There is no doubt about it. And the history of modern democracy is a history of struggle for democracy in modern nation-states.

When we try to explain the history of democracy in those countries, we do this with great enthusiasm. But mostly we ignore what these countries did at the same time in international relations and their performances have shown. For instance, the U.K. established the strongest democracy in the world in the 18th century, but at the same time, they become the strongest colonial power, one of the biggest suppliers of slaves and led some dramatic wars. While France proclaimed its democratic revolution, it started gradually to colonize Ottoman territory, part of the New World and Africa. While France, with great euphoria shouted "liberte, fraternite, egalite!," its army marched into Egypt lead by Marseilles.

The U.S. made a perfect constitution with perfect goals to "establish Justice ... and secure the Blessings of Liberty ..." But this great constitution could not bring the same good messages to the natives or to Latin America and the Middle East later. So, a nation-state democracy, even though it raises positive results in terms of its citizens, does not require acting in accordance with democratic principles and ideals of that state in international relations. Sometimes it has caused contrary behavior to democratic principles and ideals in that area. This is the logic of nation-states, and being a democracy does not contradict this logic. This result should not be surprising. Individuals living in modern nation-states go to elections to realize their own interests. This is democracy. Political institutions are successful as long as they are proper for these interests. That is the reason why democracies from the 19th and 20th centuries became the largest colonial powers. That is the reason why they are an explicit or implicit part of the conflicts in the rest of the world. While a part of the world enjoys the comfort of being democratic, the other part has to pay the bill for this comfort.

The U.N. is essentially based on this understanding. A Western alliance, if necessary, can also act by bypassing the U.N. Sometimes it is for the good. Furthermore, for mobilizing the U.S. or other major democracies to prevent atrocities in Syria or Egypt or any other Middle Eastern or Latin American country, we need to convince these states that this regional problem of atrocities could also harm their own national interests. The key concept is national interests, not universal democratic values. Universal democratic values are valid and significant only if they can be made use of and provide a proper cover for national interests.However, and rightly so, if we complain that they caused havoc in other areas of the world, we must admit that the problem is not democracy, but trapping democracy in the paradigm of the nation-state. This problem cannot be solved without the democratization of the international order. International law will not produce the desired outcome. It will neither provide nor guarantee international justice. In the end, national democracies cannot continue their existence.