For those infuriated with, or adorative of, George W. Bush’s Manichean view of world affairs (“either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists”), Natan Sharansky’s The Case for Democracy may provide insight into our President’s line of reasoning. According to the Feb. 3 Economist, Bush recommends the text to almost everyone he meets, and is engaged in an “intellectual love affair” with the author—and for good reason. Sharansky is a living witness to the brutality of the former USSR—arguably the world’s greatest fear society—having been imprisoned for nine years under the tortuous watch of the KGB for his outspoken dissent. He is an individual who has raised himself up by the bootstraps (always a Bush favorite), and now relates the lessons of his Cold War struggle to the great conflict of today—the War on Terrorism.

Dissent, Sharansky argues, is what divides the nations of the world. “Free societies,” those protecting the right of internal dissent, are the world’s true democracies, while “fear societies” exist without, and in spite of, such freedom. Of course, no society is perfect in protecting these rights, and the author acknowledges that the right of dissent is sometimes limited in free societies. However, Sharansky explains that while free societies sometimes limit dissent, fear societies always restrict, or outright ban, such privileges (speech, press, religion). Nations such as Iran and North Korea unequivocally fall into this category, for they are places where dissent is a criminal act. However, it doesn’t take a intellectual leap to realize that the latter category includes a great deal of “friendly” nations, some of which are deemed stable, if rigid, by the current international system (e.g. China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia). Sharansky argues that while it is important to censure the most egregious human rights abusers (which, sadly, the UN fails to do consistently) it is also important to pressure those “friendly” nations as well—tying their record of human rights to our foreign policy considerations.

Sharansky, therefore, rejects the “realpolitik” doctrine (or détente), which seeks to segregate morality apart from foreign policy and argues that entrenched regimes, particularly autocratic ones, are insensitive to external pressure for internal reform. In refuting these theories, he cites the collapse of the USSR , whose implosion was accelerated by intensive western efforts including Radio Free Europe and direct presidential challenges (notably efforts of the Carter and Regan administrations especially). Furthermore, he claims that similar attention is needed today for all countries with which the US has relations.

Sharansky writes the lessons of the Cold War thus: “a fear society is inherently incapable of upholding human rights and…the most reliable measure of a state’s intentions towards it neighbors is its treatment of its own citizens” (263). Using human rights as a bellwether for foreign policy, therefore, ensures that our international dealings will be on common terms—the shared values of human life and democratic society. Tragically, there are some even within our own country arguing that such morality is inappropriate. They claim that ‘democracy isn’t for everyone’ and, introduce racist categorizations by declaring the Arab world, particularly Iraq , as incapable of “democracy and reason” (98). Sharansky counters by reminding readers, “a generation ago, policymakers felt even more impotent with respect to the Soviet Union . Indeed, hardly anyone believed that the West could help trigger a democratic transformation inside the USSR ” (99).

Overall the book is well-written, with scads of personal anecdotes and carefully drawn analogies between the Cold War and our modern struggle. Sharansky reminds us that our struggle with global terrorism and autocratic “rogue regimes” is as fundamental and important as any that has preceded it. “We are in the midst of the first world war of the twenty-first century, waged between the world of terror and the world of democracy, between those for whom human life is held in the highest value and those for whom human life is merely an instrument to reach certain political aims” (240). The irrationality of the latter group precludes a successful policy of appeasement, and we must vigorously counter their murderous attacks with effective and thorough campaigns on all fronts. Democracy must be encouraged now, lest it succumb to the illegal, illegitimate forces of hate and fear.

Lastly, to those who argue that democracy isn’t universal, I have one simple appeal: give it up yourself. Never vote again, say only what would be approved by George Bush, and make sure to rescind religion entirely, as there’s no place for God in your authoritarian regime. This may seem extreme, but to deny democracy to a people is similarly extreme. Worse, such arguments are downright racist and no more logical than those denying education to African-Americans or suffrage to women in the darker days of our nation’s history. Don’t be an advocate of a hateful, anti-hope message; instead, ‘give democracy a chance.’