L'impératif démocratique de David Miliband
François Brutsch | mercredi 13 février 2008 à 23h10 | sur le front | rss
Le post-blairisme est en de bonnes mains! Le ministre britannique des affaires étrangères a prononcé hier un important discours actualisant la doctrine progressiste et universaliste du gouvernement britannique dans une conférence dédiée à Aung San Suu Kyi.
I understand the doubts about Iraq and Afghanistan, and the deep concerns at the mistakes made. But my plea is that we do not let divisions over those conflicts obscure our national interest, never mind our moral impulse, in supporting movements for democracy. We must not be glib about what democracy means - it is far more than a five year ballot. We cannot be self satisfied about the state of our own democracy. We cannot impose democratic norms. But we can be clear about the desirability of government by the people and clear that without hubris or sanctimony we can play a role in backing demands for democratic governance and all that goes with it.
(...)
We must resist the arguments on both the left and the right to retreat into a world of realpolitik. The traditional conservative 'realist position' is to say that values and interests diverge, and interests should predominate. This will not do. Yet in the 1990s, something strange happened. The neoconservative movement seemed to be most sure about spreading democracy around the world. The left seemed conflicted between the desirability of the goal and its qualms about the use of military means. In fact, the goal of spreading democracy should be a great progressive project; the means need to combine soft and hard power. We should not let the genuine debate about the 'how' of foreign policy obscure the clarity about the 'what'.
I want to begin by talking about what we mean by democracy and why we should support the spread of democratic ideals and practices. I then want to discuss how we can do so in a way that recognises both the diversity of cultures and the limits of our power and capacity to effect change.
(...)
Et Miliband de réfuter, en particulier, les trois écoles critiques de l'universalisme démocratique: les valeurs "asiatiques" plaçant la communauté avant l'individu, la contrariété entre démocratie et intérêt national et le prétendu impératif de ne compter que sur ses propres forces, sans appui extérieur.
On ne se plaindra pas forcément que le ton soit moins "prêcheur", "évangélique" que Blair; on y reconnaîtra peut-être plus facilement l'inspiration des Lumières que, pour sa honte, une grande partie de la gauche a déserté. Obama peut-il s'y retrouver? C'est une grande question de la primaire démocrate à mon avis.
Subscribe to the feed
Or to the daily newsletter
Commentaires
1. Le jeudi 14 février 2008 à 18h15, par Passant
Ajouter un commentaire
Les commentaires pour ce billet sont fermés.