veiled4allah: when 'democracy' isn't

What is democracy if not a system that allows the people to express their free choice in who will represent or rule them? Democracy is a process rather than an outcome. A democratic process may produce what we consider an undesirable result, if that is what the people want.

The problem for the U.S. is that in the Middle East, Islamist parties are very popular and would be likely to do well if not win a free election. Since that's an undesirable result, the U.S. has tended to not support democracy in the Middle East after all. This may be by supporting undemocratic regimes that keep Islamists in check and looking the other way from the fact that these countries are not democratic. Or it may be by supporting elections that are not truly free because major (Islamist) parties are not allowed to run.

That's what looks to be happening in Egypt as it prepares to move towards more democracy.

When Egypt's strongman President Hosni Mubarak announced Feb. 26 that Egypt would, for the first time in its history, hold multi-candidate presidential elections, some in the international community hailed the move as courageous. Others, particularly in the United States, called it a resounding victory for the Bush administration's "forward strategy for freedom." It was neither... ...Nour's arrest was not unique. An estimated 15,000 Islamists languish in Egypt's jails, political prisoners who have no recourse to due process or a fair trial thanks to the now 24-year-old Emergency Laws governing the country. While the Bush administration has rightly expressed outrage over the imprisonment of Nour, a secularist, America has for decades remained silent about the Egyptian regime's consistent suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood, the country's largest and most influential opposition group. This despite the fact that the mainstream Islamist opposition long ago unequivocally committed itself to non-violent, peaceful participation in the country's political life.

Those of us who work for political reform in the Arab world were heartened by President Bush's bold inaugural speech, in which he pledged to make the spread of democracy the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy. No longer, Bush assured us, would the United States excuse or tolerate dictatorship. He neglected to mention why it always had. Democratization in the Middle East has always presented a unique and confounding dilemma. While U.S. policymakers have the stated desire of promoting democracy, they have also aimed to curb the growing power of the Islamists -- the group that stands to gain most from the democratic atmosphere the United States is trying to foster in the region. The fear of the Islamists coming to power through democratic elections makes spreading democracy in the Arab world a less desirable objective.

This dilemma is especially relevant in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood continues to be banned from electoral participation. Details of who will be able to run for president remain unclear, but it is unlikely that the Muslim Brotherhood will be allowed to contest the elections. Candidates will most likely need the endorsement of a legal political party and clearance by parliament, where Mubarak's ruling party commands more than 90 percent of the seats.

If President Bush is serious about democracy -- and it appears that he is -- his administration must develop a more coherent stance toward the phenomenon of political Islam. Simply by virtue of their street legitimacy and mass support at the grass-roots level, the Islamists cannot be wished away. Moreover, it is impossible to imagine how Egypt could ever join the ranks of the world's true democracies if it fails to incorporate the political group that commands the largest electoral constituency in the country.

Islamists, for their part, have proven their commitment to peaceful democratic participation in Morocco, Yemen, Kuwait and Jordan, where they are powerful forces in parliament. Islamists in Turkey, for example, have demonstrated their impressive ability to adapt to social and political realities, in the process becoming poster-boys for Islamic moderation. Turkey's Islamist politicians were once fiery advocates of disengagement with the West. Today, the ruling Islamic-leaning Justice and Development party is, in an ironic twist, the most pro-European Union, pro-American and pro-democratic political party in Turkish history.

Jordan's experience is also worth noting -- a rare example of more than five decades of peaceful coexistence, and often close cooperation, between Islamists and the ostensibly secular Hashemite monarchy.

The lesson here is clear. Free elections, the expansion of political space and other institutional mechanisms that encourage conflict resolution through peaceful means push Islamic parties to become more moderate in their goals and aims.

In general, I think that the Middle East tends to see America's message as "You can have elections - as long as you choose the candidates we want". That isn't really a free election, or democracy, and it makes us look hypocritical. If we want to develop better relations with the Middle East, we need to get past this hypocrisy and genuinely engage with Islamist groups. If people feel that they have a voice in the system and an opportunity to bring about change, they are less likely to turn to violence to achieve their aims.