Democracy and Islam
Democracy and Islam
The one thing Bush got right
Feb 2nd 2006
From The Economist print edition
For all his other foreign-policy mistakes, George Bush is right about democracy
“AND always keep a-hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse.” To judge by their reaction to his state-of-the-union message, some critics of George Bush's foreign policy have been paying rather too much attention lately to Hilaire Belloc's rhyme. In his speech, Mr Bush said again that America was committed to the “historic long-term goal” of spreading democracy. But in the Middle East, ask his critics, hasn't his democracy agenda ushered in something worse than the previous pattern of rule by strongmen: the rise in Iraq, Egypt and now Palestine of a form of political Islam that is hostile both to the West and to the underlying values of democracy itself?
The detailed answer to this question has to be long, if only because the thing people call “political Islam” comes in so many different shapes and sizes (see article). The short answer, however, is no. Mr Bush has made many big mistakes in the Middle East. They range from inept planning and follow-through in Iraq to supine neglect of Palestine. But his democratisation policy is not one of them. In fact, it may be the one big thing that this president has got right in the region.
The least bad system
Democracy's defining feature—the freedom to hire and fire your government—does not guarantee that countries will make wise choices, or that democracies will be good neighbours. The lesson of the 20th century is that no people is immune from falling under the spell of some hypnotic voice or pernicious doctrine. In 1933 Germans freely elected the Nazi Party, which went on to reduce Europe to rubble. But only the most twisted history could blame democracy rather than dictatorship for the depredations of Hitler, Stalin and Mao Zedong. The merits of democracy are obvious and the appeal of it seems universal. So why do the familiar arguments have to be rehashed all over again in the case of the Middle East?
One reason people on the left object to Mr Bush's “freedom agenda” is that they see it as a veil for something else: an American policy of stomping about the world deposing unfriendly regimes at will. If such a policy existed, it would be wrong. But Mr Bush's agenda so far consists mainly of using the bully pulpit of superpowerdom to extol democracy's virtues. His administration has deposed only two regimes—the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq—and in neither case was spreading democracy his principal motive, given or real. It was much more old-fashioned than that.
Rightly or wrongly, both regimes were seen as threats to America. Afghanistan, which gave safe haven to al-Qaeda, surely was. As for Iraq, when weapons of mass destruction failed to materialise, Mr Bush talked up the humanitarian case for having got rid of Mr Hussein and conveniently forgot about his WMD case. To that extent, he is to blame for the cynicism his freedom talk now engenders. But the fact remains that he had to install some sort of successor regime in these two countries, and instead of imposing a friendly strongman, as America did in cold-war days, he plumped for democracy. Some of the consequences are messy. It was presumably no part of Mr Bush's design to deliver power in Iraq to Islamists friendly to Iran's ayatollahs. But the decision to allow Afghans and Iraqis a free choice was surely right in principle.
Will it turn out right in practice? Here from the opposite direction comes a second criticism, this time from the foreign-policy realists. However fine in the abstract, democracy is delivering dangerous results. Fanatical religious types rather than secular liberals are expanding into the space American guns and influence have forced open in the politics of Iraq, Egypt and Palestine. This will split multi-sectarian Iraq apart, set Arab against Jew in Palestine and deliver Egypt into the anti-western hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. Like Jimmy Carter's human-rights foreign policy in the 1970s, George Bush's democracy policy will be remembered for its dangerous naivety—a luxury a superpower cannot afford.
Even in the Middle East
In time, the realists may be proved right. An Arab country might one day vote in an al-Qaeda government and make war on America. But where is their evidence? Having attempted an insurrection in Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda is growing less popular there. Iraq under the dictator was neither at peace nor friendly to the West; the present haggling between elected parties may be the only realistic way to bind a fissiparous country together. In Egypt, the good showing of the Brotherhood in December's election was a salutary warning to the eternally ruling Hosni Mubarak that it is not such a clever idea to keep locking up your liberal opponents. Where Islamists do well, it is often because they are the only opposition left standing.
As for last week's election in the Palestinian territories, this did not create the Hamas problem: the organisation was murdering Israelis long before winning power. It remains to be seen whether victory will make it more murderous. Having to keep voters sweet may instead force it to pay less heed to its ideology of destroying Israel and more to the Palestinians' real needs and achievable goals. If it does not change it can be cajoled and punished accordingly. A democratic mandate does not license any government to make war on its neighbour or ignore its obligations under international law.
It is sometimes argued that political Islam is itself a pernicious doctrine, logically incompatible with the values of democracy, and that this is what makes its promotion in the Arab world a futile exercise. Many Islamists do insist that because God alone can make law, men who make their own laws are apostates. But this idea is held only by a minority in the world of Islam, where democracy has in recent years both spread and put down powerful roots in countries as far apart as Turkey and Indonesia. There is no obvious reason why the Arab world must remain an exception.
Holding elections is not a panacea. Democracy cannot at a stroke heal national conflicts, create civic institutions or modernise traditional societies. But whatever else people think of Mr Bush, on this one thing—the universal potential and appeal of the democratic idea—he is on the side of history.
The one thing Bush got right
Feb 2nd 2006
From The Economist print edition
For all his other foreign-policy mistakes, George Bush is right about democracy
“AND always keep a-hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse.” To judge by their reaction to his state-of-the-union message, some critics of George Bush's foreign policy have been paying rather too much attention lately to Hilaire Belloc's rhyme. In his speech, Mr Bush said again that America was committed to the “historic long-term goal” of spreading democracy. But in the Middle East, ask his critics, hasn't his democracy agenda ushered in something worse than the previous pattern of rule by strongmen: the rise in Iraq, Egypt and now Palestine of a form of political Islam that is hostile both to the West and to the underlying values of democracy itself?
The detailed answer to this question has to be long, if only because the thing people call “political Islam” comes in so many different shapes and sizes (see article). The short answer, however, is no. Mr Bush has made many big mistakes in the Middle East. They range from inept planning and follow-through in Iraq to supine neglect of Palestine. But his democratisation policy is not one of them. In fact, it may be the one big thing that this president has got right in the region.
The least bad system
Democracy's defining feature—the freedom to hire and fire your government—does not guarantee that countries will make wise choices, or that democracies will be good neighbours. The lesson of the 20th century is that no people is immune from falling under the spell of some hypnotic voice or pernicious doctrine. In 1933 Germans freely elected the Nazi Party, which went on to reduce Europe to rubble. But only the most twisted history could blame democracy rather than dictatorship for the depredations of Hitler, Stalin and Mao Zedong. The merits of democracy are obvious and the appeal of it seems universal. So why do the familiar arguments have to be rehashed all over again in the case of the Middle East?
One reason people on the left object to Mr Bush's “freedom agenda” is that they see it as a veil for something else: an American policy of stomping about the world deposing unfriendly regimes at will. If such a policy existed, it would be wrong. But Mr Bush's agenda so far consists mainly of using the bully pulpit of superpowerdom to extol democracy's virtues. His administration has deposed only two regimes—the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq—and in neither case was spreading democracy his principal motive, given or real. It was much more old-fashioned than that.
Rightly or wrongly, both regimes were seen as threats to America. Afghanistan, which gave safe haven to al-Qaeda, surely was. As for Iraq, when weapons of mass destruction failed to materialise, Mr Bush talked up the humanitarian case for having got rid of Mr Hussein and conveniently forgot about his WMD case. To that extent, he is to blame for the cynicism his freedom talk now engenders. But the fact remains that he had to install some sort of successor regime in these two countries, and instead of imposing a friendly strongman, as America did in cold-war days, he plumped for democracy. Some of the consequences are messy. It was presumably no part of Mr Bush's design to deliver power in Iraq to Islamists friendly to Iran's ayatollahs. But the decision to allow Afghans and Iraqis a free choice was surely right in principle.
Will it turn out right in practice? Here from the opposite direction comes a second criticism, this time from the foreign-policy realists. However fine in the abstract, democracy is delivering dangerous results. Fanatical religious types rather than secular liberals are expanding into the space American guns and influence have forced open in the politics of Iraq, Egypt and Palestine. This will split multi-sectarian Iraq apart, set Arab against Jew in Palestine and deliver Egypt into the anti-western hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. Like Jimmy Carter's human-rights foreign policy in the 1970s, George Bush's democracy policy will be remembered for its dangerous naivety—a luxury a superpower cannot afford.
Even in the Middle East
In time, the realists may be proved right. An Arab country might one day vote in an al-Qaeda government and make war on America. But where is their evidence? Having attempted an insurrection in Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda is growing less popular there. Iraq under the dictator was neither at peace nor friendly to the West; the present haggling between elected parties may be the only realistic way to bind a fissiparous country together. In Egypt, the good showing of the Brotherhood in December's election was a salutary warning to the eternally ruling Hosni Mubarak that it is not such a clever idea to keep locking up your liberal opponents. Where Islamists do well, it is often because they are the only opposition left standing.
As for last week's election in the Palestinian territories, this did not create the Hamas problem: the organisation was murdering Israelis long before winning power. It remains to be seen whether victory will make it more murderous. Having to keep voters sweet may instead force it to pay less heed to its ideology of destroying Israel and more to the Palestinians' real needs and achievable goals. If it does not change it can be cajoled and punished accordingly. A democratic mandate does not license any government to make war on its neighbour or ignore its obligations under international law.
It is sometimes argued that political Islam is itself a pernicious doctrine, logically incompatible with the values of democracy, and that this is what makes its promotion in the Arab world a futile exercise. Many Islamists do insist that because God alone can make law, men who make their own laws are apostates. But this idea is held only by a minority in the world of Islam, where democracy has in recent years both spread and put down powerful roots in countries as far apart as Turkey and Indonesia. There is no obvious reason why the Arab world must remain an exception.
Holding elections is not a panacea. Democracy cannot at a stroke heal national conflicts, create civic institutions or modernise traditional societies. But whatever else people think of Mr Bush, on this one thing—the universal potential and appeal of the democratic idea—he is on the side of history.
posted by Marco Parigi at 10:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home