Thoughts from London

Democracy, the west's cosmic mantara
Indonesia's first free presidential election would doubtless be welcomed by those who believe their leaders should be elected by the people in free and fair elections. Within six years of the collapse of President Suharto's three decades of dictatorial rule, Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim state, has accepted the democratic path.

Whoever eventually wins the election- there might well be a second round if no candidate garners more than half the vote- this vast archipelago of well over 200 million people has sought to let its people make the choice.

The United States and some other western nations that now tout democracy as the cosmic prescription to the problems of those states that they would like to describe as undemocratic or evil, might well applaud Indonesia's decision to strike out on the democratic road. At least they would do so publicly because democracy is the universal panacea they have been trying to sell the world.

Yet Washington and London which have been in the forefront of the messianic mission to convert the uncivilised nations around the globe and absorb them into the "free world", must surely entertain some fears that Indonesia might not behave the way they expect Jakarta to do.

Indonesia is a front line state in Washington's post 9/11 war against terror. The Bali bombings proved that Islamic extremists operate out of Indonesia and probably remains the operational headquarters of the group responsible for the Bali attacks.

In the post 9/11 period, the US, avidly interested in having a military presence in the Asian region or governments supportive of and sympathetic to Washington's concerns, was desperately trying to re-establish links with the Indonesian military.

They wanted to forge a new relationship despite the fact that the Indonesian military has been highly discredited over its role in East Timor which raised serious concerns in the US Congress. The military was also accused of trying to crush the nascent people's movement in Indonesia itself in the last days of the Suharto regime and thereafter.

For all its advocacy of democracy as the ultimate nostrum for the shortcomings of the world, Washington and London would have preferred to deal with the authoritarian, pro-western regime of President Suharto than to build bridges with a democratic Indonesia that might well decide at some stage to keep the neo-imperialist western coalition that invaded Iraq at arms length.

While expressing righteous indignation at the tyrannical rule of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and promising to bring salvation not only to the Iraqi people but to the Arab world in the form of democratic change, President Bush and his transatlantic running mate Tony Blair know- or they should-that democracy cannot be successfully imposed from outside.

To ignore historical experience, the cultural, political and social background and the prevailing ethos and hope that an ideology could be transplanted in an unreceptive soil is being either foolhardy or disingenuous.

Last week Tony Blair appeared to finally come round to the view many knowledgeable people have held for many months- that the chances of finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were almost non-existent.

Whether it was the failure of intelligence or the failure of the political establishment to look more closely at that intelligence, the fact is that the grounds on which Washington and London particularly, dragged their peoples to war were, to be charitable, flimsy.

When that argument began falling apart, the Bush- Blair duo started shifting their justification for war elsewhere. Saddam Hussein was a horrible chap and deserved to be ousted from power. Now the Iraqi people can rule themselves under a democratic system that would serve as the precursor for the democratisation of the Middle East with respect for human rights and the rule of law and other ingredients of good governance.

Does Washington really want a democratic Saudi Arabia? All these decades the US and UK have been quite happy to do business with an authoritarian Saudi ruling class that was ready to keep the west well oiled from the richest oil and gas fields in the world.

It is in the strategic interests of both the US and UK to have a Saudi regime that would ensure the protection of western interests. For such support the Saudi royal families invest their oil wealth in the west and the west supplies military hardware to keep the ruling class in power.

It has always been a convenient and mutually lucrative relationship. But the dynamics of the Middle East and in the rest of the Islamic world and in countries with substantial Muslim populations are changing, largely because western heavy-handedness and insensitivity have radicalised Islamic society.

Washington wants a democratic Saudi Arabia as much as the people in Sri Lanka want to contract dengue fever. One only needs to look at the regimes that the United States, the United Kingdom and some western European states have had very close relations with over the last several decades to realise how hollow this call for democracy sounds.

Asia itself provides classic illustrations of how well such authoritarian rulers served western interests. Washington's long, loving relationship with several military and civilian dictatorships in South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, South Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and Pakistan and the authoritarianism in Singapore stand as sentinels to America's commitment to democracy and human rights.

Turn to some of the Latin American dictatorships that have ruled that part of the world for decades in the 20th century. Were not many of them propped up by Washington, militarily and economically? Did Washington not help some of them to crush popular movements and overthrow democratically elected governments, deny their peoples the fruits of democracy?

Democracy must emerge from the people. It is they who must have a desire for it. It needs to be nurtured and shaped according to the cultural and historical traditions of that country just as western democracy is not the same in every country.

One might get oil at the turn of a tap. Coalition forces or handpicked administrations cannot bring democracy at the turn of a screw. In the democratic heart lands-the US and UK- people are becoming increasingly pessimistic about democracy as practised.

Mike Moore's widely read book "Stupid White Men" gives graphic details of how the democratic process and instruments of governance were subverted to ensure that George Bush junior became president when in fact he should have lost the election. In the UK the low turn out at polls and disenchantment with the major political parties are clear signs democracy in the UK is facing serious challenges.

Perhaps the US and UK should attend to cleaning up their own stables before trying to drag reluctant horses to water and hope they will take a drink.

Back to Columns