Whereas the United States’ foreign policy is straight forward in projecting ‘exporting democracy’ as one of its primary objectives, India has always been cautious about not getting clubbed into the democracy-crusader category. India’s greatest post-independence achievement has been in setting up a vibrant democratic structure with a functional parliament and regular elections at all levels. Not only that, it has helped several fledgling democracies in setting up of a democratic structure from time to time. The latest in the list is Egypt: India has given it tips on holding elections, especially about the use of electronic voting machines (EVMs).

After the revolution in Egypt and removal of Hosni Mubarak, the country is putting a democratic structure in place. The first challenge before the caretaker government is to hold presidential and parliamentary elections later this year, as demanded by the revolutionary forces at Tahrir Square in February. New Delhi was never shy in helping the country. Once a request came from Cairo, chief election commissioner S Y Quraishi and other EC officers went to Egypt last month to share their experience of the election process.

“Egypt is interested in learning about how India manages elections. We have an experience of 60 years and great credibility worldwide. So we just wanted to share our experience,” Quraishi told Governance Now in an interview this week.

In the past, New Delhi has helped a number of countries like Bhutan, Nepal, Namibia, Afghanistan and even Iraq on election-related issues. However, India has been extremely guarded in highlighting this work. As Quraishi put it so guardedly, “We don’t want to advice or lecture anybody.”

The CEC further added, “I strongly advice Egyptians not to import EVMs from any other country, including India. They (should) develop their own technology because public perceptions are very important. Elections have to be managed by that country itself.” India’s message was outright clear. In February, external affairs minister S M Krishna had said, “India will certainly try to position itself to be of advantage to forces of democracy so dear to India’s heart.”

Why has ‘exporting democracy’ become a dirty phrase? Why do some countries not acknowledge it openly? Exporting democracy is an American dream, and one that was delivered to the people of Europe after World War II, writes Daniele Archibugi in article titled ‘Can democracy be exported?’ in the Open Democracy website.

Archibugi also argues that while Washington was successful in exporting democracy in the western European countries, it was not so successful when it tried military means. Exporting democracy was also a tool against communist regimes during the Cold War. Several examples can be cited: Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Cuba, north Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Haiti and Grenada.

Even in the 21st century, America’s efforts to impose democracy on two countries – Iraq and Afghanistan – have backfired. The Iraqis saw America’s military attempt as an attack from outside, thus giving negative connotations to the phrase ‘exporting democracy’. “Democracies at war inevitably develop a chronic disease,” Archibugi further writes. In fact, many Americans have been asking why their country continues to push this agenda at all.

India’s democracy-related guidance to other countries is limited to sharing information about and the experience of democratic institutions such as the election commission and the human rights commission or the strong judicial system or training programmes for parliamentarians. Look at Afghanistan for example, where India has made vital contributions in developing moribund institutions.

A few failures have haunted India too in the recent past. For example, its ‘help’ to Nepal has been criticised by many in the Himalayan country. However, largely, India has not been in the business of ‘exporting democracy’, rather it believes in ‘exporting democratic values’ and that too without using any military might.

(With inputs from Deevakar Anand)