Democracy's Friend

The esteemed Dr. Mohammad T. Al-Rasheed is at it again. He is happily tweaking the sensitivities of elitist Europeans, anti-Western Muslims, and all the enemies of democracy. There is, of course, much more to the full article on Arab News, but this bit has an awfully nice flavor.

US President George W. Bush has come up with a splendid idea about democracy in the Middle East. It is ethically sound, a rarity in the world of politics. And for all his faults, the man has firm beliefs and I believe this is one of them. His erstwhile ally in war, Tony Blair, is not lending his support in peace. So never mind Jacques Chirac and his sleazy ex-prime minister.

The deal is obvious: the Europeans would rather deal with the devil they know because they are sure that what is coming will turn to McDonalds and Hollywood rather than Paris or London. On the other hand, the elite in this region are yapping about their refusal of democracy imposed from the "outside."

To my mind, democracy is the same everywhere. It also means that American-style democracy would probably put an end to hereditary jobs in a republic and limit their terms in office. Now what is wrong with that? We screamed "Foul" when America supported dictators so shouldn’t we now cheer if they have reconsidered and learned from mistakes Europeans made?

My first instinct, along with a deep appreciation for what Dr. Al-Rasheed is saying to his fellow Muslims, is to say I don't know that I completely agree with him in the idea that democracy is the same everywhere. Democracy, or, more specifically, representative governments, tend to magnify the national character. So a representative government in France doesn't look, in its effects, like the representative government in America. Neither do those governments project their power and influence in the same way, although that may be more of an issue of practical limits than on true national character. A Middle Eastern democracy won't look like America, either, and neither does it need to.

The operations of an honestly representative government--the trust that it breed between the rulers and the ruled, the continual changes in the power structure that helped steer the government in (generally) small ways, and the movement toward equity for all of the ruled--do seem to be remarkably similar from culture to culture. And maybe that is Dr. Al-Rasheed's view. Maybe that is what he sees in the future that America wants for the entirety of the Middle East.

A representative government in Iraq will still have the flavor of Islam, will still have the unique feel of a culture that is distinct from ours, and will still represent its citizens fairly.

When I think of President Ronald Reagan, I don't think of a man who did things in a small way. He invested himself in his vision, and he did everything he could to accomplish his goals. When he was in the White House, only fools seemed to believe that his policies would lead directly to the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Only now does it seem as obvious to us as it was to him that the Soviet Union could never keep up with the United States and the West in an economic war played out relatively bloodlessly through military expenditures.

President Bush's vision for the Middle East is no smaller than Reagan's was for the Cold War. In fact, it may even be more difficult to achieve, and the results of the struggle won't be known for decades. It is a vision that I support completely, though, not because I am a cultural imperialist, but because for one very practical reason and for one ethical reason.

The practical reason is simple: the United States' long-term security goals cannot be achieved until the Middle East has transformed from a collection of belligerent religious tyrannies into a coalition of representative governments who work with the rest of the world for the betterment of the region. No easy task, I'll admit, but utterly necessary.

The ethical reason is just as straightforward: I believe, along with President Bush, that democracy is a gift to all people. The theocracies and thugocracies of the Middle East violate every notion of human rights and ethical government that I hold dear. While my own wonderful country doesn't always live up to my expectations, I know that my voice in concert with others can change the course of the nation. In the Middle East, the political calculus is never as simple as that.

The ethics and pragmatism of politics have brought me to the same conclusion that President Bush seems to have come to: that the United States has an obligation to do its best, even without the rubber stamp of the UN, to bring something better to the Middle East. We can no longer afford to ignore the region, assuming that the terrorists won't touch us here at home, and neither does winning a war in Iraq completely solve the problem.

What is good to know is that people like Dr. Al-Rasheed see the same thing. We do have friends in the region.

Read the story.

Posted by zombyboy at March 4, 2004 05:07 PM | TrackBack