The Clipboard: X marks the despot

From an article¹:

The reality, however, is that the US has no genuine interest in democratising the Middle East. Its interest is in obtaining governments that are malleable, not anti-American or anti-Israeli, and willing to collaborate in the "war on terrorism" even at the expense of human rights. So long as they do that, democracy is neither here nor there.

In a BBC radio interview a few days ago, a policy expert from the Cato Institute, a Washington based thinktank, warned that the Indonesian government - democratically elected - would have to do more to combat terrorism. If it didn't, he suggested, the US would have to have a word with its friends in the Indonesian army about changing the government. (link)

This article makes some good points about "bringing democracy to the Middle East".

---

Complete text of the article, X marks the despot, by Brian Whitaker

It must have been extremely tedious work counting ballot papers in Iraq last night.
With not one of the 11 million or so registered voters allegedly risking a show of opposition to Saddam Hussein or even putting a cross in the wrong box by mistake, there was nothing to break the monotony. Except, perhaps, for trying to count those super-loyal voters who chose to mark their papers in blood rather than the customary ink or pencil.

And so the Iraqi president has obtained another seven-year mandate - helped in no small measure by the lack of any opposing candidate and the absence of votes from millions in the Kurdish north, where Baghdad no longer has administrative control.

Many Iraqis, regardless of their feelings about Saddam, viewed this particular election as a way of showing national solidarity against the threat of a US-led invasion.

Outside Iraq, on the other hand, many see this ludicrous exercise, and the unbelievable 100% vote of confidence in the Iraqi leader, as further evidence of the need for regime change in Baghdad.

After the coming war, a senior member of the UK Conservative party remarked the other day, Iraq will turn into "a beacon of democracy in the Middle East".

Others, particularly on the US right, and in Israel, have said much the same thing. Attacking Iraq is not just about weapons of mass destruction - it is the starting point for democratising the entire region.

This line of argument sounds good until you actually think about it. Wars are always more palatable if people can be persuaded that the future of democracy is at stake. But there's a big difference between a war to preserve our own way of life against an outside threat and a war to impose democracy on others.

One of the snags of the 1991 conflict over Kuwait was that it could not be portrayed as a war for democracy until the exiled emir called his people together and promised to restore parliamentary government once the country had been liberated.

"There's not a single democracy in the 22 nations of the Arab League," an official in the US administration told the BBC recently.

Others constantly repeat the line that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Factually, both claims are open to dispute, though it depends how you define a democracy. It is true to say that systems of government in the Middle East leave much to be desired, but several countries - including Morocco, Egypt, Yemen, Kuwait, Lebanon, Bahrain and Iran - do hold recognisably competitive elections.

If we really wanted to create beacons of democracy in the region, there is a lot we could do in practical ways to help those countries along the road, without the need to bomb Iraq into democracy.

Beacons of democracy are fine, of course, so long as we are prepared to live with the results. There's a widespread assumption that Middle Eastern voters would, given half the chance, throw out the men with moustaches and elect clean-shaven figures like George Bush and Tony Blair.

But we should not bank on that. In the present climate, with the US swaggering around the region and making no effort to clear up the festering sore of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it's more likely that military moustaches would be replaced by the straggly beards of Islamic militancy.

The reality, however, is that the US has no genuine interest in democratising the Middle East. Its interest is in obtaining governments that are malleable, not anti-American or anti-Israeli, and willing to collaborate in the "war on terrorism" even at the expense of human rights. So long as they do that, democracy is neither here nor there.

In a BBC radio interview a few days ago, a policy expert from the Cato Institute, a Washington based thinktank, warned that the Indonesian government - democratically elected - would have to do more to combat terrorism. If it didn't, he suggested, the US would have to have a word with its friends in the Indonesian army about changing the government.

There are plenty of other examples of this sort of behaviour -including "the other September 11", in 1973, when a US-inspired coup removed the elected Allende government in Chile.

In terms of what Arabs themselves want, there is not much evidence that they regard democracy - for its own sake - as a high priority. What ordinary people do complain about, endlessly, is corrupt and unjust government. Ask them if democracy would cure that, and they generally reply that the politicians will continue to line their own pockets whether democratically elected or not.

As far as Iraq is concerned, it is not the most obvious cradle for regional democracy, because of the conflicting ethnic and religious minorities. Democracy - a word often uttered with a capital D as if it were some absolute, definable quality - takes various forms, all of them imperfect.

Essentially, it's a formalised means for resolving arguments according to the wishes of the majority, which is fine so long as the minority accepts it.

A democratic system becomes much more difficult and complex to achieve where there are substantial minorities, as in Iraq, whose rights need to be protected.

It is therefore not very surprising that the latest US plan for a postwar Iraq, disclosed last weekend, put democratisation on the back burner and proposed instead an extended period of firm military rule - headed, in all probability, by a US general.

reference=http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,813077,00.html