The Fate of Democracy in the Middle East

This column had been published in Kompas 26 July 2006

The ambitious democratization project in the Middle East initiated by President George W Bush by toppling Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq is obviously a big failure. Iraq is out of control. Instead of being the model of democracy, Iraq has become a soil land for the birth of “terrorists”. Polarization between Shiah and Sunni is much more complicated than what Washington has predicted.

The decision makers in Washington talked about remapping the Middle East, exactly like British and French colonizers in 19th century and the beginning of 20th century when they saw world as a piece of map to be marked and divided as they like.

In fact, “democratization” and remapping has involved the lost of thousand innocent souls in vain. To the decision makers in Washington, thousands of civil casualties are called as collateral damage, an euphemism in military vocabulary since the Vietnam war.

Israel’s brutal attack to Lebanon (according to Israel military officials, the attack was very well calibrated), would make most of Arabs skeptical upon the democratization process in the Middle East. What US want seems not merely “democratic” governance in the Middle East. They want nice guy such as Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries, who would bow to US and Israel’s will and interest. Israel and US’s boycotting Hamas who won the democratic election in Palestine indicates that US government and Israel does not want democracy only.

I doubt whether President Bush and Interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert believe that democracy in the Middle East is a principle the must fight for. Just as democracy can deliver government who support illiberal ideas (as Fareed Zakaria discussed in The Future of Freedom, 2004), it also can deliver government who do not want to bow to US pressure. Hamas is the best example. US government seems dislike Hamas’s victory therefore to them, democracy is not “political virtue” which must be defended unconditionally, but only instrument with secondary value.

Two Requirements

Democracy in the Middle East cannot be held without two requirements. First, popular support or grass root support. Here, the Islamic teaching plays an important role in forming public opinion. Democracy as a political system should have cultural anchor within religious tradition in the Middle East. Therefore, democracy cannot be “imported” from the West or “cultivated” by force. Democracy must grow from “inside” although the external factor and international milieu are also influential. A homegrown democracy is very important.

US government’s dream to “democratize” Middle East would be fail since the very beginning due to two reasons. First, democracy is not an important “political virtue” for US government. It is only instrument. Second, democracy is enforced from the outside through war, like in Iraq. Democratic rhetoric also comes lately when the public begins to know the lie behind the weapon of mass destruction’s argument to justify the invasion upon Iraq.

Actually, there is no antithetical contradiction between Islam and democracy, although few Muslims regard democracy as an “infidel” system. Most of Muslims observe democracy as compatible with Islam. Therefore, it is inappropriate for US government to promote and campaign for democracy in the Muslim world. The problem is that while US government is busy promoting democracy in the Middle East, their attitude has not been supporting at all. US government’s unconditional support toward despotic regimes in the Middle East is a good example. US government’s attitude who do not want to “have any relation” with Hamas who won democratic election in Palestine is another example. Once more, US’s measures, mainly led by President Bush, indicate that what they wanted is not democracy, but something else.

Israel-Palestine Conflict

The second important thing is Israel-Palestine conflict. Campaign for democracy in the Middle East will be hindered if the US government does not provide “fair” treatment toward Palestinian. The problem of Palestine will always be the black sheep of the relation between US government and the Muslim world. The Muslim world has been observing US’s unconditional support toward Israel, while they constantly force Palestine government to fulfill their interest. Hamas victory in the recent election is “political punishment” for not only PLO and other secular factions in Palestine, but also for US and Israel that never predict this would happen.

The Muslim world has seen obvious injustice every minute in Palestine. While the Jewish people live freely, and even suggested, to come and live in Israel, millions of Palestinian who endure the “exodus” and “Diaspora” across the world were not given any right to come back. While Palestine government has always been obstructed for establishing sovereign state, US gave unconditional support to Israel. While Israel has never been disturbed for having nuclear, US government relentlessly force Iran into corner for having the similar arsenal (however, it does not mean that I agree with Iranian nuclear project).

In the case of Israel’s attack to Lebanon, President Bush says within G-8 countries conference in Russia, that Israel has the right to defend itself against Hezbollah. This statement is obviously weird. Is it only Israel that has the right to defend itself while Palestinians who were kicked out of their motherland has not? One serious problem of US is an assumption that Palestine seems to be always on the wrong side and Israel is always right.

In this constellation, I become more skeptical on the US democratization project in the Middle East. What is obvious now is a combination of two annoyed things, despotism of Arab government which always supported by Washington, and “enforcement” of democratization from the outside which makes the Middle Eastern citizen suspicious about the project. Once more, Islam is compatible with democracy. What matter now is US unfair treatment toward the Muslim world today. A big gap between “Muslim world” and “America” cannot be solved without radical overhaul and change in US foreign policy.