Exporting American democracy has been called “arrogant,” [1] cruel, and is often likened to imperialism. Though American democracy may be arrogant, it is also an important gift to America and to the rest of the world.

Whether America is entirely successful in exporting democracy to other nations is not the question; rather whether it 1) serves America’s national interests and 2) improves the countries in question, in contrast to their previous systems.

A country’s responsibility is to better its standing in the world, and to do so requires friendly partners. America exports democracy, our own system, because we want countries to align with us, and democratic countries are much more likely to do so. 

Exporting ideology, making sure foreign governments are favorable to its own is within every country’s right. In this world, where the law of the jungle rules, protecting the interests of your own country is the number one priority. Now, one may mention the foreign quagmires America has found itself stuck in while trying to promote democracy. However, these instances are dwarfed by the number of successes American democracy has brought abroad, and how many allies America has made out of potential enemies.

Admittedly, misadventures in the Middle East, Vietnam, and South America show that success rates aren’t 100%; however, people tend to cite these examples without using a baseline comparison. It is much more useful to compare these failures to the much larger number of successes.

After World War II, America established numerous democracies in Europe. Countries that were formerly run by fascist dictators became American allies, not only because they were on the Western half of the Iron curtain, but also because their people saw that the freedom and values exemplified by American soft power, were superior to those of any other system that existed in the world at the time. These countries, along with numerous others, became American allies, partners in the quest for freedom across humanity. Partners that share common values, such as the same political system, stay partners. Promoting democracy is just another way for the United States to ensure its network of alliances, de facto and de jure, throughout the world. Exporting democracy, purely from an American standpoint, helps this great nation better thrive in the world. Sure, many American partners in Europe and Asian have slightly different versions of democracy, but they still uphold democratic values.

American democracy, with its relatively stable two-party system also prevents fringe parties like Alternative for Germany from gaining seats in parliament, as the party did in the 2017 Federal Elections [2]. A fringe party with such extremist views would never gain that much power in the United States.

American democracy also helps its importers. When foreigners look to America, they see booming industries, the best universities in the world, remarkable affluence and opportunities for the average, and a country that serves as the global leader. This admiration holds true throughout most of the developing world, even in countries that have deep ties to America’s adversaries [3]. No other country has all these attributes. Norway may have incredible wealth per citizen, but has no real leadership ability and relies on America for defense through NATO (let’s not pretend that they could defend themselves). China may also have a leadership role in the world, and be an industrial leader, but the average Chinese citizen lacks the wealth the average American has. The way foreigners look to America is the way foreigners look to our political system, which preserves our laissez-faire economic system and the wishes of our people.

There are two reasons why American democracy can be successfully exported.

American democracy is about the people influencing policy from a bottom-up movement, rather than the top-down policy formulation of most countries. Donald Trump’s election is one example; his opponent outspent him by $400 million [4]. When American democracy fails, it is because the people of the country are not ready for democracy. I freely admit that democracy has thresholds of human capital that need to be met, and in those cases, any type of government is likely to fail without improvement in human capital. But when countries that do have sufficient human capital point to failed democracies, it is simply an excuse for not implementing democracy.

Throughout Western Europe and Northeast Asian countries, countries that were previously under fascist regimes, or only had pseudo democracies, greatly strengthened as a result of democracy. With free and open elections—a key part of what separates American democracy from pseudo-democracies (e.g. pre-WW2 France or today’s Russia)—a country’s leadership has to produce results, (i.e., better living standards for their people) in order to be reelected.  

Elite rule is an ancient and time-honored concept. Societies have long been controlled by the few, and cast in the image of the educated, rich and powerful. Yet, in recent centuries, dictatorial rule has fractured, as countries from Latin America to the Middle East have rejected historical social hierarchy and political rule in favor of democracy. Trading the bullet for the ballot box, revolutionaries have ‘overcome’ elite suppression through democratic process. However, in this process, many of these countries have simply just jumped from the frying pan into the fire. Rather than recovering and redistributing wealth, influence, and rights, democracy has simply reinforced existing boundaries, allowing elites to retain, and in some cases, consolidate more power. In newly formed democracies, nations highly divided by class conflict, and regions with uneducated and uninformed electorates, democracy can share and exacerbate societal flaws. It is, in other words, far from universally perfect.

Forming and legitimizing the new balance of power in a newly democratic region can prove indicative of the long-term success and moral basis of the government. Boris Yeltsin’s rule and Vladimir Putin’s rise to power, which were both marked by power-consolidation and media manipulation, exemplify flawed democratic transition. Boris Yeltsin, partnering with opportunistic oligarchs, divided old Soviet industry among a privileged few—leaving the Russian people to starve, while the rich accumulated massive fortunes. Upon his rise to power, Putin allowed these oligarchs to stay in control, legitimizing elite rule [5]. The splicing of power among highly-privileged individuals and the enforcement of existing rule under the guise of political freedom are typical within newly formed democracies. Similar transitions to democratic rule in Latin America enforce the notion that existing structures and figures must be replaced if democracy is to succeed.

New democracies often fall into authoritarian regimes in regions without sufficient political balance. Venezuela, for instance, has fallen into a dictatorial power vacuum just years after it was posed to lead the new free world under its socialist hero Hugo Chavez.