"Devils behind every door..."

When I'd teach my undergrad students about what textbooks quaintly call 'transition to democracy', we would inevitably land on the core dilemma for western countries as they interact with non-democracies: should we prioritize stability or democracy? Will removing this or that particular autocrat lead to a healthy democracy or a post-Tito-Yugoslavia-style hell? Is democracy a good worth pursuing regardless of concomitant chaos? Should we think long-term and push what neoconservative polemicist Daniel Pipes prescribed for post-invasion Iraq: a “democratic-minded strongman”?

The stability/democracy tension is clear in the responses, by governments, experts and pundits, to the past week's mass protests in Egypt. Some think bad things will happen if Mubarak is ousted. Others think (well, know) that bad things will continue to happen if he doesn't. Both sides are probably right.

I can't remember who it was that said that total depravity, a central tenant of five point Calvinism, is the only empirically verifiable theological doctrine. (I also think that Total Depravity would be a great name for a Calvinist heavy-metal band). In politics, the choice isn't between a pure and right option, and a second option that's, well, the opposite of that. All institutions and people and movements are touched by sin. That translates into non-theological language as everything is broken.

Ross Douthat's recent New York Times column puts it well:

There are devils behind every door.
    Americans don’t like to admit this. We take refuge in foreign policy systems: liberal internationalism or realpolitik, neoconservatism or noninterventionism. We have theories, and expect the facts to fall into line behind them. Support democracy, and stability will take care of itself. Don’t meddle, and nobody will meddle with you. International institutions will keep the peace. No, balance-of-power politics will do it.
    But history makes fools of us all. We make deals with dictators, and reap the whirlwind of terrorism. We promote democracy, and watch Islamists gain power from Iraq to Palestine. We leap into humanitarian interventions, and get bloodied in Somalia. We stay out, and watch genocide engulf Rwanda. We intervene in Afghanistan and then depart, and watch the Taliban take over. We intervene in Afghanistan and stay, and end up trapped there, with no end in sight.
    Sooner or later, the theories always fail. The world is too complicated for them, and too tragic. History has its upward arcs, but most crises require weighing unknowns against unknowns, and choosing between competing evils.

When people say 'this is going to lead to some trouble', regardless of what the 'this' is, they're probably right.