About the author: Edward Price is principal at Ergo, a global intelligence, consulting, and forecasting firm. A former British trade official, he also teaches at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs.
Israel faces a terrible dilemma. How to act in Gaza?
On the one hand, Israel must destroy Hamas. That much is clear. But on the other, doing so will cause untold civilian deaths. Hamas is embedded in urban areas. So how does a humane government, a democracy, best defend itself against inhumane enemies?
You’ve probably heard of the famous Thucydides trap. That’s the risk a rising power will make war with an established one. But if you look closely enough, the ancient historians also wrote about another puzzle. Call it the democracy trap. Here’s the trap in its essence. Act with the same brutality as tyrants, and risk becoming a tyrant yourself. Or act with democratic restraint, and risk defeat.
In the fourth century B.C., Thucydides recorded the Peloponnesian war—a conflict between ancient Athens and Sparta. After the Greek city states defeated the Persians, they began to squabble among themselves. Ultimately, Athens and Sparta went to war. Why? Sparta was suspicious of Athenian power. That was the Thucydides trap.
During the conflict, however, the democracy trap also occurred. Democratic Athens had to decide what to do with Mytilene. This small settlement had rebelled against the Athenians. As such, the Athenians’ first idea was simple. Kill the men and enslave the women.
The next morning, however, Athens relented. Maybe that punishment was too harsh. Was it really a good look for running a coalition? Enter Cleon, the Athenian general who had come up with the original punishment. Thucydides records his address to the queasy Athenians.
“Because fear and conspiracy play no part in your daily relations with each other, you imagine that the same thing is true of your allies… What you do not realize is that your empire is a tyranny exercised over subjects who do not like it and who are always plotting against you,” Cleon said.
Cleon meant that democracy lacks spine: “A democracy is incapable of governing others.” His point was this. How can any power govern an empire, or defend itself, if it’s not willing to massacre a few traitors now and then?
Nonetheless, the Athenians belayed their initial orders, instead putting to death a mere thousand men. That was far less than the original plan, but still pretty rough. By today’s standards, killing a thousand people would be both counterproductive and beyond the pale.
Or would it?
The U.S. has fallen afoul of the democracy trap. It trusted China, imagining as Cleon said that fear and conspiracy would play no part in relations. That was wrong. Likewise, the EU. It thought anchoring Russia to European energy demand would result in a friendly trading partnership. Again, totally wrong. Both mistakes echo the fatal historic error of the British—being too tardy to see that 20th-century Germany, not France, was the major threat to European peace.
Maybe the West has been too soft. Look at precision strikes in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Both wars were lost.
Or maybe the West isn’t soft enough. The wars in both Vietnam and Afghanistan are remembered, in the US, as terrible overreach.
This is why the democracy trap is so very difficult. It is a balancing act. A democracy’s physical survival requires force. Its moral survival needs some leniency. Force is essentially nondemocratic, while the trouble with mercy is the exact opposite. Empathy means appeasement, even a rout.
Today, two democracies face this trap—Israel is one, Ukraine the other. Ukraine is fighting a bigger power, Russia, while Israel is fighting a smaller power, Hamas. There is a lingering threat that stronger military powers may join the fight against Israel, especially Iran and its militant allies in Lebanon. And a long war of attrition in Europe favors Russia.
So, with the democracy trap in mind, what are these modern democracies to do? Bring to bear every last ounce of strength in defense of their homelands? Or try to retain the moral high ground, despite the existential dangers that lie ahead?
If you find that question too difficult to answer, perhaps think of it like this. In 428 B.C., what would you have done with Mytilene? Gone with the majority and let the rebels go? Or put all the rebels to death?
After two and half thousand years, perhaps Cleon will finally win his argument.
Guest commentaries like this one are written by authors outside the Barron’s and MarketWatch newsroom. They reflect the perspective and opinions of the authors. Submit commentary proposals and other feedback to [email protected].
Read the full article here