inside the glass house

West Asia Democracy turns sour for West
NEW YORK - The biggest single political nightmare for US policy-makers is fast becoming a deadly reality. What if you foster democratic elections all over the Middle East and only radical Islamists are voted into power?
The stunning victory by Hamas, described by the mainstream media as a radical Islamic party bent on the destruction of Israel, is one of the disastrous setbacks to US policy in the politically and militarily troubled region.

At elections held last week, Hamas took 76 out of 132 seats, winning control over the Palestinian legislature, and ending the 40-year domination by Fatah which was founded by the late Yassir Arafat.

''You want democracy -- and we will give you democracy,'' was the sarcastic comment by a sneering Hamas supporter, as he delivered a virtually slap to the Bush administration which has ambitious plans to democratise the entire Middle East.

At a news conference last week, President Bush was defensive of his much-touted policy of spreading good governance and rule of law in the Arab world.

"There was a peaceful process, as people went to the polls, and that's positive" he told reporters. Attributing the success of Hamas, partly to the corruption and mismanagement of the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority, Bush said: "The people are demanding honest government. The people want services."

Both the US and the European Union have declared they will not deal with Hamas until and unless it renounces terrorism, disarms its militia and recognizes the legitimacy of Israel. A tall order.

So, in effect, Western democracy comes with political strings attached. The Western world is also threatening to cut off all funding to the Hamas-governed Palestinian Authority.

The spread of radicalism through the ballot box may be the wave of the future in the Middle East. So, how can you give the people an ample dose of democracy and then challenge their choice of politicians?

By Western standards, the Hamas victory was not an isolated aberration. But it gained wide publicity because of its potential impact on Israel, a US ally.

The Muslim Brotherhood has gained tremendous ground in recent elections in Egypt threatening the US-backed dictatorial government of President Hosni Mubarak. But it has received relatively less exposure in the media. Mubarak has been fending off US attempts to encourage a democratic government by warning American policy makers that multi-party democracy may bring the radical Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt, one of the most populous countries in the Arab world. The bogey of Islamic radicalism is ensuring unwavering US support for Mubarak.

The same argument has been used by virtually all of the authoritarian or family-run regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco and Tunisia.

Moreover, US attempts to foster democracy in the Middle East have also faced a setback in Lebanon where the radical Islamic party Hezbollah has continued to increase its political influence. Like Hamas, Hezbollah has also refused to recognize the legitimacy of Israel.

In Iran, multi-party democracy has brought a radical president to power who is defying the US and Western Europe over his civilian nuclear development. An attempt to haul the Iranians before the UN Security Council may be derailed by China and Russia, two countries with economic and military interests in Iran.

In recent US-supported elections in Iraq, the Shiites have played a dominating role and may one day end up having their own nation state backed by neighbouring Iran. The US may wind up with two anti-American states for the price of one.

And so the dilemma for the Bush administration is: should it encourage democracy in the Middle East even if it brings anti-US radical elements to power through the ballot box? Or should it try to figure out why this political phenomenon is gradually taking root, mostly in countries where anti-US sentiments have been spreading, specifically over American policy relating to the Middle East; its support of Israel right or wrong; its military misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan; and its backing of dictatorial Arab regimes in the Gulf.

The radicalization of democracy in contemporary history can be traced to Algeria, a one-time French colony, which fought a brutal war on independence in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

And the first radical victory in democratic elections came in late 1991 when the Islamic Salvation Front, the political wing of the Armed Islamic Group, won the first round of elections in Algeria.

The Western world was so shocked by the victory that it covertly backed the Algerian army to prevent a second round of elections and engineered a military takeover of that oil-rich North African country.

But neither the US nor the European Union threatened to impose sanctions or ostracize the army-backed Algerian government for preventing a democratic government coming to power in that country.

As a result of the military takeover, the Islamic Salvation Front was deprived of its ultimate goal of establishing an Islamic state in Algeria, which was anathema to the Western world, including the US.

If Algeria fell into the hands of Muslim hardliners, it was obvious that two of the strongest pro-Western neighbours would fall next: Morocco and Tunisia.

Back to Columns