There has been alot of chatter in the blogosphere, and the net in general, regarding the U.S. strategy on democracy promotion in the Middle East. Juan Cole published an essay a while back titled How Bush Created a Theocracy in Iraq. In this essay he sets out his argument on how the neo-con inspired illusion has now made Shiite Iran, the most influential power in the region thereby undermining American security for a long time to come. In a similar vein, Col. Lang argues in a recent post that the result of our policy of democracy promotion, is to aid Islamists in their rise to power. Additionally, Dov Zakheim, at the National Interest, argues that blindly promoting democracy for democracy's sake in the Middle East will not only undermine our security in the long run, but will also create problems which we will have to deal with for decades to come. This article was created partly in response to a piece by Helena Cobban in which she argued that the US should support all democracy, no matter whom it brings to power (i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas in the Palestinian Territories and Hezbollah in Lebanon.) The Crisis Group, also has a slew of articles and reports focusing on this question under the heading Islamist, Violence and Reform.
The main argument of opponents of the Bush administration's policy of democratizatoin is that all we are doing by promoting democracy in the Middle East, is opening up each country to Islamist infiltration or the so called theory of "one man, one vote, one time," and with it the consolidation of power by groups which not only will support al Qaeda and similar organizations, but who share similar ideologies. Others argue, as Nathan Sharanski has done, that democracy is the well-spring of peace; democracies do not fight one another, the theory goes, hence establishing democracy in the Middle East would ensure that moderates come to power and that secularism prevails. President Bush, fits into this category, he sees democracy promotion as the most important part of the fight against al Qaeda, and has argued the above at one time or another, based on the notion that democratic governments are responsible to the people who elect them. As such, we have been pressuring Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and other countries in the region and elsewhere to begin the process of democratization and reform. The Council on Foreign Relations also issued a report in which it argued that
"the United States must convey a message that the general quality of bilateral relations will be contingent, in part, upon reform...[It] should take steps to distance itself from governments that refuse over time to recognize the political rights of their citizens."
This is a very important question that we will be facing as election results keep coming from the region. Recently, in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood increased its share of representatives (running as independents because the MB is banned from participating in politics in Egypt) almost six-fold from its previous representation. As
S. Nihal Singh puts it;
if a country which remains the trendsetter and leader of the Arab world can go the Muslim Brotherhood way, given half a chance, what would happen to American interests and the much-advertised "war on terror"? It was not meant to be so, but the modern moderate Opposition parties gathered an insignificant share of votes.
The same is true of the Palestinian elections, where Mahmud Abbas's Fatah Movement is likely to lose ground to Hamas in the upcoming elections. Lebanon is another case in point, here Hezbollah captured a high enough percentage of the vote to make it an influential player politically even as it refuses to disarm. Even Iraq has not been able to escape this trend, there SCIRI and DAWA, both who have the backing of powerful militias, won the recent Iraqi elections that will form the permanent Iraqi government for the next four years. Additionally, there have been many reports that these militias, in additon to Sadr's Mahdi army, have been imposing religious law (Shari'a) on the populations of the South and intimidating any and all secular opposition, even in Baghdad. Reports state that they have burned down liquor stores, have harrased and injured female college students for not wearing hijab or for traveling alone without a male companion. This is a topic with which Riverbend, an Iraqi girl from Baghdad, has dealt with extensively. One respondent to Cole's piece put it this way to describe what was going on in the Middle East "Unintended, meet Consequences,"echoing word for word a post by Col. Lang titled "Unintended Consequences on the Road to Democracy."
It seems that the critics of the current policy are correct in their assesment, I mean you cannot deny the facts of what has happened. As Larry Johnson has recently pointed out at No Quarter, the trend in Iraq and elsewhere is the rise of fundamentalists Shiites allied with Iran. Col. Lang from Sic Semper Tyrannis posted the article mentioned above with cites to a conservative pundit from the Washington Times, which essentially argued the same point as Johnson on the recent elections in the Middle East.
In earlier posts I've argued that we are in a race against al Qaeda to determine the manner in which the region will change in coming decades. Much of what has happened so far is discouraging. For example, after the Muslim Brotherhood's parliamentary gains in the recent Egyptian election they came out backing the position of Iranian President Ahmadenijad on the holocaust being "a myth" propagated by zionists and the West to legitimize the colonization of Palestine.
The argument has always been that democracy moderates the behavior of parties and hence prevents or curtails terrorist action. That is the same argument used by Palestinian president Abbas for bringing Hamas into the fold. However, as with the Muslims Brotherhood, Hamas is also proving that it is capable of incorporating itself into the political life of the country even while refusing to abandon calls to violence or moderating its stance on any issue, particularly that most important one regarding Israel's right to exist.
Now that the elections in Iraq have brought the religious fundamentalist SCIRI and DAWA back to power for a four-year term, the question of what type of democracy for the Muslim World becomes even more pressing.
As Diana West (linked to by Col. Lang above) puts it, recent events also raise questions with regard to the president's argument that "the terrorists know that democracy is their enemy," she argues in a similar vein as Zakheim that is seems as if
from the PA, where sharia-supporting terrorists are winning primaries, to Egypt, where sharia-supporting terror-ideologues are being elected, to Iraq, where sharia-supporting terror-state-allies are being elected, democracy is not their enemy. It is vox populi. And just because the people have spoken doesn't mean we should applaud what they say.
So where are we? Is this the future of the Middle East? If so, how does it affect our strategic interests in the region? Are the critics right? Does that mean that the neo-con dream of a democratic and moderate Middle East was nothing but an illusion or chimera?
To some extent, yes. But the neo-con dream of a democratic utopia, was never a realistic dream to begin with because as far back as antiquity we have known that given the right rhetoric and the right fears, democracy (vox populis) tends to radicalize more rapidly than other forms of government. Our forefathers knew this and that is why they crafted for these United States not a democracy, but a representative republic which is, as Tom Barnett recently put it, "built on laws, not the voice of the masses." Put another way, democracy in and of itself, cannot be the whole solution. For democracy to work in the manner envisioned by the neo-cons, the countries where it is "installed, imposed on, born" or whatever else we want to call the process, needs an educated population, a large middle class, and working political, legislative and judicial systems. Our form of government is more than just being able to vote, or choose a leader. If the right conditions, protections and procedures are not in place (i.e. the rule of law), democracy can easily turn into mob rule.
In many of the countries where democracy and reform are beginning to make their appearance, most of the things mentioned above are missing. To borrow from Thomas Barnett, the Rule-Sets that allow for democratic governance are not yet present. The government has too much power, and there are not enough checks and balances to ensure that it does not abuse them. Economic connectivity in many instances is non-existent, educational and advancement opportunities are sorely lacking, hence no viable Middle class (usually the political center) is in place to demand rights or control the passions of the population or its poles. Strong men or dynasties are still in power and there is no legislature or judicial branch strong enough to check and balance them. As such, opposition of any sort is stifled, there is a lack of economic or educational opportunity and the mosque is the only place available to air grievances. Put all of this together and you have the seeds of radicalism in place. As if that were not enough, we also have a region where there are still outstanding issues waiting to be resolved that add further fuel to the fires of that radicalism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being one of the most visible.
Many of the arguments above against the policy of democratization center on these issues, and the fact that given half the chance to express popular will, almost without fail Muslims in these countries have chosen candidates who are either Islamists, terrorists, or both. The accusation often levelled at the administration, and those who support its policies is that of being ignorant or naive, if not both.
In many ways the arguments espoused by those who oppose the Bush policy is that "democracy is a fine thing [to promote] as long as the right guys win." Once we bring, promote or establish democracy in a country, the will of the people is supreme and we can no longer ensure that that their choice is going to be, well, the right one. In Egypt, for example, we supported reform and elections and what did we get for our troubles? A stronger voice for the Muslim Brotherhood, and a reduced role for any secular reformers (who fared very poorly in the elections). To be fair, however, the Egyptian case presents certain circumstances that need to be taken into account of before jumping to any conclusions. First, Egypt's ruling autocrat is a secularist and has enforced that secularism with an Iron fist (in not too dissimilar fashion to Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan against Hizb ut-Tahrir), persecuting Muslim opposition parties ruthlessly (in so doing, planting the seeds of radicalism into any Muslim opposition that has survived the repression). The secular opposition has always been weak, given the fact that they have no access to the airwaves, no right to assemble or in many instances to speak out against the government. The Muslim Brotherhood on the other hand, has been around since the 1950's and has established a social network that many times is far more competent and efficient in providing for the poor's needs than the Egyptian government itself. Furthermore, the MB has the mosque as its bully pulpit, it needs no ads in television as it gets the word out through, well, the mosque and friday sermons. As such, they have an advantage over any opposition party, whether secular or not, to get the vote out. That partly explains the results of the election in Egypt. Additionally, part of the problem in the Middle East has always been that the governments in the region have either promoted religion or secularism ruthlessly. As such, people react to any freedom to express themselves by supporting that which has been denied them. Islam is an integral part of every Muslim's life, and many have always felt that part of the problem with the various despots in the region, is their lack of religiosity. As such, when the MB espouses as its slogan, "Islam is the solution" it has a definite ring that many muslims can understand and appreciate. Furthermore as it has become evident from the elections in Palestine, people are not so much voting for an Islamic state, as they are voting for an end to tyranny and corruption. Islamic parties are generally viewed as less corrupt to many muslims because of the social networks they establish and because of the services they provide to the population. That is, they practice what they preach and in countries used to having to bear the whims of corrupt, tyranical rulers, the alternative presented by these religious parties seems like a breath of fresh air.
In many ways, I've always been a bit ambivalent about the administration's focus on promoting democracy in the Muslim world, not so much because I'm against democracy, or because I think democracy can't work in the region, but rather because I have never believed that democracy can be imposed from the outside, it has to be born and nurtured from within. As such, any time the US sets as its goal the promotion of democracy, unless it is done with a view to internalizing it within a given society, it is bound to fail. That is something that has been missing from our current struggle. As Zakheim notes, during the Cold War the US, and other players on our side set out on a "long-term commitment [and] a concerted program to reach out to all levels of those societies" under Communist rule to reinforce their democratic tendencies. While a similar program has been launched in the Middle East with the establishment of TV and Radio stations that present the US view, they are more often seen as propaganda outlets than viable news organizations. This of course has not been helped with recent revelations that the US has been buying off media outlets in Iraq to ensure that good propaganda got out to the Iraqi masses about the pace of reconstruction in the country. The perception that the news from these outlets, or any report supportive of the US position as propaganda has been planted, and that is more important than the truth. In many ways, regardless of the actual need to battle anti-american propaganda the policy became the equivalent of shooting ourselves in the foot.
That said, after September 11, 2001 it became clear that the status quo in the Middle East could no longer continue because it had failed to provide the stability that we once thought it would, and instead bred an enemy so radicalized that it was willing to kill 3000 plus American civilians in its quest to drive us, and the status quo (the dictators and autocrats) in the Middle East out of the region. The case often presented by the administration (apart from WMD's or the ever popular Mushroom cloud) for toppling Hussein was that in removing him from power we would empower Iraqis to create a representative government in the heart of the Middle East which would be a "beacon for democracy and reform." As things turn out, they were only partially right. For one, we have shifted the balance of power between Shiites and Sunnis in the region, giving Iran a likely ally in Iraq, in what is now being described as the new Shiite crescent in the Middle East. Secondly, if the elections demonstrated anything, it is that vox populis indeed will rule Iraq long after we have gone. The shiite majority returned the the UIA to power this time for a four year term.
So what does all of this mean? Well for one, we have to look past the present morass and identify what it is that makes Islamist parties so popular with the masses. Is it as many argue, their tendency to vote for radicals and terrorists? I argue that it is not. So would the Christian mayor of Bethlehem (A Christian) Victor Batarseh. Below is an excerpt from the WSJ of his how he ended up allied with Hamas.
Historically, Bethlehem's mayor has always been a Christian; eight of the 15 municipal council seats are also reserved for Christians. Mr. Batarseh, a practicing Catholic, won the popular vote. But in order to become mayor -- a post determined by vote among city council members -- he had to choose between allies: Christian members of Mr. Abbas's Fatah party or Islamists aligned with Hamas and a smaller militant faction known as Islamic Jihad, which has also carried out numerous terror attacks.
Weary of years of poor government, graft, nepotism and favoritism under the Fatah-run local government, Mr. Batarseh says he went with Hamas "because they aren't corrupt and because they are efficient."Settling into their new offices on Manger Square, Mr. Batarseh and his four Hamas city council colleagues -- including Hassan El-Masalmeh -- followed up on their promises with a torrent of change. They barred officials from using government cars for private business -- a common practice under the previous government. They cracked down on unauthorized merchants selling goods in the city and installed a new approvals process in the city's procurement office to reduce waste and ensure contracts went to the lowest bidder. They also removed seven people from the government's payroll who did no work.
To be sure, the political alliance in Bethlehem isn't without tensions, the mayor opposes Hamas' use of suicide bombings, and wants to negotiate with Israel to gain a viable Palestinian state whereas the Hamas politicans feel suicide bombings are justified, and can be used to drive Israel into the sea.The above excerpt shows us some of the main reasons why Islamic religious parties, from Egypt to Iraq are winning elections. The current crop of leaders and their organizations are considered corrupt and inefficient, hence the people are seeking an alternate voice. As I stated earlier in this post, the mosque provides groups or parties like Hamas with the ability to get their message out far more than secular parties can, as a result, they win. As things stand now, unless we address this imbalance in getting the word out, and find a way to help secular, moderate parties to present the people with an alternative that is both efficient and honest, but not Islamist, Hamas and parties like it will keep winning.
I disagree with those who believe that democracy is fine as long as the right party wins, that is not democracy. We must let the people decide on their own whom they want to represent them. Building the foundations of true democratic governance in the Middle East will take time, it won't happen overnight. Ultimately, the people in each country will determine their future, all we can do is provide them with the tools to be able to decide. In the Middle East, any government that comes to power following the overthrow of dictators, reform initiated by autocrats or dynasties, will likely be more religious than we would like, however, that does not mean they will support terrorism or seek the destruction of the state of Israel. Why? Because as Thomas Barnett recently argued those striving for power act differenty than those who've achieved it and because most founders of countries start out as rebels and terrorists before gaining power. This was the case of the Colonists in America, the Zionist terrorists in Palestine, the Iranian revolutionaries in Iran (who despite their rhetoric must provide for their people and keep them happy or face revolution themselves).
I didn't want to post this earlier because I'm still mulling many of the things that are going on in the region, and the manner in which they will affect American national security, however, at the current time I do not have time to chew on the subject at hand, hence I thought it advisable to post it to get reactions from everyone out there. I tried to provide both sides of this issue, obviously I'm partisan to one over the other, hence I overcompensated by citing more sources for the position I do not favor. Well, it's an unfinished post, but I want to get reactions from everyone.
UPDATE
Abu Aardvark has a great post that deals with the ramnifications of the Palestinian elections, which were won by Hamas. He is correct in this:
For America, I think it's extremely important right now to handle this right: honor the will of the people, demonstrate a commitment to democratic process, and see what happens. Give Hamas the chance to prove its intentions. Don't get too upset about the inevitable bursts of objectionable rhetoric by excited victors - test deeds, not early words. Above alll, don't give the Islamist hardliners the winning argument they crave about American hypocrisy. Refusing to deal with Hamas right now could effectively kill American attempts to promote democracy in the Middle East for a generation.
Why? Well, because as Aardvark points out,
It is an article of faith among virtually all Arabs and Muslims that in 1992 the United States and Europe green lighted the Algerian military coup after the Islamist FIS stood on the brink of electoral victory. This has been taken for a decade and a half as the definitive evidence that the American and European commitment to democracy was a hypocritical farce: democracy only if our allies won.
In fact, Ayman Al Zawahiri has pointed to this event as one of the main reasons why Muslims should reject democracy, mainly because for the hypocritical West, it is only democracy, if the right side wins. Cutting off ties, and attempting to set Hamas up for failure at this early stage will only confirm the Arab world's suspicion about our true intentions, and will reinforce their belief that we truly don't want democratic government in the region, but rather governments that will be subservient to the Crusader-Zionist alliance. Give Hamas a chance to prove itself, and then respond to its actions, not to its rhetoric. This is a question we will have to deal with over and over again in the Middle East as "democracy continues on the march." The governments that will be elected might not be those we want, but we must learn to deal with such setbacks in a manner consistent with out values, otherwise we give groups like al Qaeda a powerful weapon to use against us, the same weapon we gave Hugo Chavez in Venezuela when we condoned an attempted coup against him; the moral highground.
Read More...
Snippet only...
