Which is what I already believed. But, anecdotally, at least, Nicholas Kristof's recent editorial in NYT really hammers the fact home. I don't always find what he writes particularly compelling or even interesting, but when he editorializes on the issue of how good and universal education can transform societies, he's spot-on.
Good and universal education are way more important than "democracy," in promoting world peace. That may be a fact that makes people uncomfortable, especially Westerners accustomed to believing that the former is somehow possible only with the latter. But the facts "on the ground" seem to be irrefutable, to me.
The problem, of course, is that universal education takes a long time to produce the effect - in essence, an entire generation. Whereas "democracy" can be "imposed" (via some type of election or other) almost immediately. It suits our desire for quick results. But getting people to vote in "failed states" (e.g Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia) solves almost nothing. Building schools and making sure they're used will, in about a generation, solve a great deal.
Comments