The Democracy Challenge By Donnel Jones, April 14, 2003

Three articles, two of which, by Robert D. Kaplan and Ken Jowitt, are courtesy of The American Scene blogsite discuss the prospects that lie ahead in fostering democracy in the non-West, specifically in the Middle East, that region of the world where the U.S. has its sights for regime change.

With his review of Fareed Zakaria's book "The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad," Robert D. Kaplan summarizes Mr. Zakaria's argument about the folly of trying to instill democracy by instituting free elections in that part of the world where liberal values such as the rule of law, the rights of free speech and religion and the protection of minorities are lacking. Elections, in other words, become the top ornament of a fully developed Christmas tree without whose trunk and branches you have only democratic window dressing. In short, Mr. Zakaria claims that democracy is not always synonymous with freedom.

After all, Hitler gained power in a democratic election. Often Third World elections lead to coups or usher in dictatorships. Such a thing could happen in Saudi Arabia where "free" elections would surely lead to the toppling of the House of Saud and the imposition of a Wahabi theocracy. Zakaria is not being overly skeptical about the prospects of democracy in other parts of the world; he's just not convinced it can be willed by the good intentions of the West. Counter-intuitively, democracy has developed where one would least expect it because of the prior existence of autocratic rule: Chile and Taiwan where the dictatorships opened the economy slowly and partially, but this process made government more and more liberal.

All in all, Zakaria remains optimistic as his book tells a cautionary tale to counter Western hubris. On how to deal with a post-Saddam Iraq he counsels patience and endurance.

Not so with Ken Jowitt who seems to revel in the sheer impossibility of introducing any kind of democracy in the Middle East. He outlines the Bush Doctrine of "dominance," "preemption," and "regime change." Jowitt rightfully dismisses the notion of a domino theory of one democracy leading to another. There is really no reason to believe democracy will follow upon democracy in the Middle East. Will brute force make it so? Not likely as well. We will have to wait and see if Iran does indeed overthrow its mullocracy and embrace some form of democracy after regime change in Iraq. If regime change does occur in Iran it will greatly boost Bush's doctrine. But even regime change in Iran may not guarantee the same in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

Jowitt also contrasts the often quoted examples of the post-WWII reconstruction of Germany and Japan with the prospect of reconstructing Arab states today. Reconstruction would imply a prior state of war and surely no American administration seeks war that is not warranted, something Jowitt, I believe incorrectly, greatly fears could happen as America gets trigger happy with its success. More to the point, however, is the real possibility that other states, whose intentions are less noble, could ape Bush's doctrine to pre-emptively strike other nations in the name of national security. Jowitt offers North Korea's hypothetical attack against a nuclear Japan as an example.

But if not by war, then how do other Arab states undergo reconstruction? Implode from within as Iran might? Arab fury bringing down Assad or Mubarak? In the absence of predictable scenarios outside conquering an enemy, war and its aftermath may be the only possibility for democracy in the Middle East precisely because war is so drastic. Yet war and "enlightened" administration in its wake are no sure way to see democracy at the end of the tunnel. For example, Germany and Japan were completely crushed and psychologically traumatized through war, and therefore ripe for real change from within. Jowitt points out that America also had to keep its commitments to allies in post-war Europe because of the threat of Soviet expansion. It simply couldn't pack up and go home. Will America keep its committment in Iraq surrounded by enemies?

Yet Jowitt writes before the three week war that now has clearly opened up other possibilities for Iraq. Much of the Arab world is now bitter about the lies of their "free" press as well as their leaders' shunting their subjects' hatreds away from them and toward the West and "infidel." Consider the Iraqi celebrations in the streets. What will the other Arab peoples think about them? Might they want similar regime change?

It's too early to tell, but despite Jowitt's insistence that Western democracy is not meant for everyone and that to assume so smacks of American hubris, it is also true that we really don't know what history holds in store for the Middle East. Maybe democracy will not flourish there, or maybe autocratic governments, as formerly in Chile and Taiwan, will eventually lead to democracy. One thing is certain: the material and political conditions of the Middle East must be improved. If not, terrorism and religious fanaticism will continue to flourish there. Does Jowitt have any suggestions to achieve such necessary improvement other than through democracy?

Jefferson Morley is a bit more optimistic and tells how liberation of Iraq is having a soul-searching effect on the Arab world.

Arabs, [Shafeeq Ghabra, the president of the American University of Kuwait] says, are in "harmony with chaos," afflicted with the "inability to comprehend the language of interests, calculations and balances of power. With the collapse of Baghdad, Arabs . . . fell from a throne they built in their imagination.

With the fall of Baghdad, Arab thought as we knew it since the 1967 defeat collapsed. The nationalism that misled Saddam and our peoples has also collapsed, as well as a pattern of Arabism many of us exploited in favor of autocracy, oppression, dictatorship and the confiscation of other people’s rights. With the fall of Baghdad, the whole system prevailing in Arab countries and their culture has collapsed.

What's surprising is that these quotes come from Arab news sources: Daily Star, Gulf News, Arab News, Tehran Times, and Turkish Daily News.

A little bit of reckoning may go a long way. Yet Khatami, as quoted in Tehran Times (more appropriately named "Terrorist Times"?) takes a whack at the United States The American people, he said, "should know that present policies of their policymakers would initially and in the long-run not be in their favor. It is not yet late for the U.S. and Britain; they can get out of Iraq quickly and make up for their mistakes and blunders to some extent by preparing the ground for establishment of a popular government in the country.

Maybe he knows his goose is cooked now that Saddam is gone. As we all know, current reform in Iran is a joke. Khatami's got to go.