Logic in the Middle East and The Limitations of Democracy
by P.J. Schwartz
Not long after I watched President Bush on CNN extolling the virtues of democracy evidenced by the Palestinian legislative elections, I felt an odd wave of disgust. Then I thought of Winston Churchill. Among the British Prime Minister's most famous sayings was the remark: "democracy is the worst form of government; except all the others that have been tried."
Events in the Middle East this week, however, would seem to suggest that only the first part of Churchill's dictum is true. The victory of Hamas in the elections for the Palestinian parliament has demonstrated once again that the process of democracy in the Middle East may result in a state of affairs entirely worse than what we in the West want or expect. In the wake of the overwhelming electoral victory of what is arguably the world's most prolific terrorist organization -- one that has entirely rejected the peace process that succeeding American administrations have so painstakingly tried to create -- perhaps we must begin to seriously ask if democracy has any relevence to the problems that plaque that part of the world.
Just a few weeks before, commentators in the West were expressing surprise that voters in Iraq decisively favored religious parties over secular ones and had voted along sectarian lines. The Western World, in its blissful certainty that its political culture is a replicable ideal for humankind, may be too enchanted with its own image and accomplishments to recognize that its traditions, born of the Enlightenment, the Reformation, and the Industrial Revolution, simply may not root well in the sandy, tribal soil of the Middle East. At the very least, the tender democratic shoot growing there appears to defy any sense of logic.
For most of its history, the Middle East has been governed by distant emperors or native kings, caliphs and dictators. An autocratic power skilled at maintaining order among warring tribes, insular clans, errant nomads, brigands and bandits, seemed the most effective where nation states had yet to be born and where legislative and judicial institutions were non-existent. Why anybody believes the argument that Islamic culture will suddenly embrace non-sectarian pluralism because it is presented as an unsolicited gift from American troops seems on its face to be ridiculous.
In spite of what it says on the package, the American crusade for democracy in the Middle East is clearly more about the freedom to do business than the business of freedom. The Saudi royal family and the princes of the Gulf states have continued to survive by virtue of American protection. Since the creation of these states from the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, American policy has been more concerned with the stability of the regimes and their oil reserves than the medieval character of their governments. It is now certainly clear that America's invasion of Iraq had more to do with accomodating the pressure to remove American bases from the Islamic holy land and re-position them in strategic proximity to those oil wells than with a compelling need to enfranchize voters in the Fertile Crescent.
Hamas went into the parliamentary election claiming it was riding a wave of discontent among Palestinians who were tired of corruption in the Palestinian Authority and disgusted with the lack of progress in negotiating with Israel. That Hamas and Islamic Jihad bombs were a key factor in that lack of progress didn't seem to matter to Palestinian voters; nor did it matter that the institutional corruption that was so thoroughly disdained was a product of the decades-long reign of Yasser Arafat, who had been buried as a national hero and savior barely a year before.
As world leaders and regional commentators try to make sense of it all, at least one point is obvious; there is no escaping the fact that by giving Hamas a landslide the Palestinian people were giving voice to what numerous polls taken in the occupied territories have shown over the years -- the popular endorsement of the practice of suicide bombing and the rejection of a negotiated peace with Israel. With the election of a far-right Israeli government now almost a certainty as a result of the Palestinian's exercise of their popular will, Israeli security policies will be even tighter and Israel will be more compelled to unilaterally determine borders. The daily life of Palestinians will suffer as access to Israeli jobs disappear and Western donors retract the largess that has underwritten the Palestinian economy for many years. The result of the Palestinian foray in democracy will make the realization of the often-stated dream of Palestinians for a state much more remote. Palestinian voters knew this and they voted for Hamas anyway.
The attempt to grow democracy in the Middle East and the illogical results of American policies will presumably have far-reaching consequences. One day in the not too distant future, Americans will figure out that the our parenting of democracy in Iraq will mean that their sons and daughters have died to instill a Shiite state fundamentally hostile to American interests. As the newly-elected president of Iran continues to thumb his nose at the West and pursue the development of nuclear power, we may begin to recognize that without the establishment of key political and civil institutions, without a foundation of pluralistic traditions, the democratic process cannot be the magic bullet that policy planners have dreamed will bring peace and stability to that part of the world. The budding democracies in the Middle East may prove to be closer to Churchill's (and President Bush's) worst nightmare.
by P.J. Schwartz
Not long after I watched President Bush on CNN extolling the virtues of democracy evidenced by the Palestinian legislative elections, I felt an odd wave of disgust. Then I thought of Winston Churchill. Among the British Prime Minister's most famous sayings was the remark: "democracy is the worst form of government; except all the others that have been tried."
Events in the Middle East this week, however, would seem to suggest that only the first part of Churchill's dictum is true. The victory of Hamas in the elections for the Palestinian parliament has demonstrated once again that the process of democracy in the Middle East may result in a state of affairs entirely worse than what we in the West want or expect. In the wake of the overwhelming electoral victory of what is arguably the world's most prolific terrorist organization -- one that has entirely rejected the peace process that succeeding American administrations have so painstakingly tried to create -- perhaps we must begin to seriously ask if democracy has any relevence to the problems that plaque that part of the world.
Just a few weeks before, commentators in the West were expressing surprise that voters in Iraq decisively favored religious parties over secular ones and had voted along sectarian lines. The Western World, in its blissful certainty that its political culture is a replicable ideal for humankind, may be too enchanted with its own image and accomplishments to recognize that its traditions, born of the Enlightenment, the Reformation, and the Industrial Revolution, simply may not root well in the sandy, tribal soil of the Middle East. At the very least, the tender democratic shoot growing there appears to defy any sense of logic.
For most of its history, the Middle East has been governed by distant emperors or native kings, caliphs and dictators. An autocratic power skilled at maintaining order among warring tribes, insular clans, errant nomads, brigands and bandits, seemed the most effective where nation states had yet to be born and where legislative and judicial institutions were non-existent. Why anybody believes the argument that Islamic culture will suddenly embrace non-sectarian pluralism because it is presented as an unsolicited gift from American troops seems on its face to be ridiculous.
In spite of what it says on the package, the American crusade for democracy in the Middle East is clearly more about the freedom to do business than the business of freedom. The Saudi royal family and the princes of the Gulf states have continued to survive by virtue of American protection. Since the creation of these states from the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, American policy has been more concerned with the stability of the regimes and their oil reserves than the medieval character of their governments. It is now certainly clear that America's invasion of Iraq had more to do with accomodating the pressure to remove American bases from the Islamic holy land and re-position them in strategic proximity to those oil wells than with a compelling need to enfranchize voters in the Fertile Crescent.
Hamas went into the parliamentary election claiming it was riding a wave of discontent among Palestinians who were tired of corruption in the Palestinian Authority and disgusted with the lack of progress in negotiating with Israel. That Hamas and Islamic Jihad bombs were a key factor in that lack of progress didn't seem to matter to Palestinian voters; nor did it matter that the institutional corruption that was so thoroughly disdained was a product of the decades-long reign of Yasser Arafat, who had been buried as a national hero and savior barely a year before.
As world leaders and regional commentators try to make sense of it all, at least one point is obvious; there is no escaping the fact that by giving Hamas a landslide the Palestinian people were giving voice to what numerous polls taken in the occupied territories have shown over the years -- the popular endorsement of the practice of suicide bombing and the rejection of a negotiated peace with Israel. With the election of a far-right Israeli government now almost a certainty as a result of the Palestinian's exercise of their popular will, Israeli security policies will be even tighter and Israel will be more compelled to unilaterally determine borders. The daily life of Palestinians will suffer as access to Israeli jobs disappear and Western donors retract the largess that has underwritten the Palestinian economy for many years. The result of the Palestinian foray in democracy will make the realization of the often-stated dream of Palestinians for a state much more remote. Palestinian voters knew this and they voted for Hamas anyway.
The attempt to grow democracy in the Middle East and the illogical results of American policies will presumably have far-reaching consequences. One day in the not too distant future, Americans will figure out that the our parenting of democracy in Iraq will mean that their sons and daughters have died to instill a Shiite state fundamentally hostile to American interests. As the newly-elected president of Iran continues to thumb his nose at the West and pursue the development of nuclear power, we may begin to recognize that without the establishment of key political and civil institutions, without a foundation of pluralistic traditions, the democratic process cannot be the magic bullet that policy planners have dreamed will bring peace and stability to that part of the world. The budding democracies in the Middle East may prove to be closer to Churchill's (and President Bush's) worst nightmare.
Comments