Let me clarify. Democracy means the rule of the many. The many, if given a chance to practice democracy, can choose political liberalism (a government that is "neutral on the question of the good life, or of what gives value to life," as Ronald Dworkin put it, agreeing with Kant that "No one can compel me (in accordance with his belief about the welfare of others) to be happy after his fashion") or political illiberalism. The majority of people in many parts of the world, decidedly poor and illiberal, tend to choose illiberalism over liberalism, if given a shot at democracy, and to establish illiberal democracy. So, promoting democracy in this context means promoting illiberalism.
> a comparative historical analysis
> by Rueschemeyer at al (_Capitalist Development and Democracy_) showing that
> it's the "low income and wealth" working class that is driving force for
> democracy, while the upper class tends to be an impediment to it.
Assuming that Rueschemeyer, et al. share my distinction between democracy and liberalism, I completely agree with them: it's the poor who desire democracy, and it's the rich who desire liberalism, in part to check democracy of the poor.
> I think that the relationship is far more complex than variations in income
> and wealth.
It sure is. In the Middle East, there are at least two kinds of Islamism: the Islamism of Hamas, Hizballah, the Iranian government, etc.; and the Islamism of international jihadists of an apocalyptic tendency. The main supporters of the former are poor (Palestinians in the OPTs, most of whom are unemployed; poor Shi'is in southern Lebanon; poor Shiis in rural areas and urban slums in Iran); the main supporters of the latter are middling sorts (the elite stratum of the working class, the petit-bourgeoisie, and a section of capitalists).
The Islamism of international jihadists of an apocalyptic tendency hail from, live in, and/or are supported by money raised in countries governed by pro-Tel-Aviv-Washington Arab regimes, especially the Gulf states, Egypt, and Jordan; and/or hail from, live in, and/or are supported by money raised in the West.
The problem of neoconservative social engineering is that it tends to foster the Islamism of international jihadists of an apocalyptic tendency by destroying functioning states and organizations run by rational modernizers, both secular and Islamist: Hamas, Hizballah, the Iranian government, etc.; and the pre-war Iraqi government, the Lebanese government, and the Syrian government.
There are things we could do to address the rise of international jihadists of an apocalyptic tendency if we had power. I'd suggest that we start by revoking the Gulf states' right to exist, put their territories under the United Nations mandate, hold the plebiscites there to let the peoples there determine what kind of government they want. Once the new democratic governments get established there, which will be illiberal but not as dangerous as the current Gulf states, we'll move on to Jordan and Egypt. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>