Debate: Spreading Democracy in the Middle East Is a Bad Idea

[Purveyor]

By SHIBLEY TELHAMI

Both the American project to spread democracy in the Middle East in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and the Iraq War were doomed from the outset. That's not because the Middle East is incompatible with democracy, but because the project was based on contradictions and erroneous assumptions.

Spreading democracy as a goal of American foreign policy is not new. Even in the Middle East, the administration of President George H. W. Bush pushed for democratic reform as a priority in 1989 and was instrumental in promoting elections in Jordan and elsewhere. During the first few months of the Clinton administration, Secretary of State Warren Christopher spoke of democracy and reform and raised the issue with Arab leaders.

The outcome was telling. Not only did Islamists do well in elections in Jordan and Algeria, but those countries that reformed were the most reluctant to cooperate with the United States after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. In the second case, the Clinton administration's need to rally support for the emerging Oslo agreements once again sidelined the democracy question.

But since Sept. 11, the policy of spreading democracy was sold as a strategic objective, not merely as part of spreading American values. The assumption was that the terrorism that America faced was, in part, a function of the absence of democracy in the Middle East. That this notion had little factual support mattered little. Much of the literature shows that moving from authoritarianism to democracy is unpredictable and destabilizing . Thus, it should have been clear from the outset that neither the public in America nor the public in the Middle East would see benefits that justified the course. Even worse, the very terrorism that elevated the democracy policy in America's priorities was likely to increase, as it thrives where central authority is weak and instability is widespread.

Shibley Telhami is the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and Senior Fellow at the Saban Center of the Brookings Institution. This article is based on an article that appeared in the Spring 2007 issue of Dissent. Mr. Telhami will debate this topic as part of the Intelligence Squared US debate series.

---EOE---

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3611559&page=1

[Demeter]

1. The Whole Concept of "Spreading Democracy:" Like So Much Butter Is Fallacious

Democracy isn't a topping, it is the structure of a world view. It arises from a peculiar set of circumstances:

an educated and experienced populace that has fled oppression by both religious fascists and secular ones to a protected area where they can explore alternatives unmolested by foreign powers.

This populace designs its politics so that neither birth, wealth, nor religion create a ruling class.

This populace fights to maintain those equalities.

And as you can see, the United States didn't start out perfect, and its attainment of democracy peaked in the 60's. Now we are rapidly sliding down to serfdom.

[katty]

2. U.S. foreign policy thinks democracy spreads like margarine

fast, covering a wide territory all at once-but butter is the real thing, churning it takes time and patience-and some people just have no taste for it and see no reason to acquire one.