Log In | Register
George Bush's mantra has been "democracy good, terrorism bad." So how does he reconcile the fact that Hamas, a terrorist organization, has won a democratic election process. Bush may have succeeded in convincing the Palestinian Authority to conduct a nonviolent election campaign with high voter participation — but with what results? Slate writer Fred Kaplan highlights this disparity in a recent article:
Reality-spinning can go only so far, though. It can't disguise or refigure the year's most jolting political earthquake: the victory of Hamas—the militant Islamic party that openly advocates terror and the destruction of Israel—in the Palestinian parliamentary elections. Bush didn't ignore this event entirely—he declared, to stormy applause, that Hamas must recognize Israel and disarm—but he did sidestep its staggering implications. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had pushed for these elections, against the advice not only of Israelis but of the relatively moderate Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. Their push was in keeping with Bush's flowery rhetoric, ever since his second term began, about the unstoppable force of freedom and democracy. Elections in Palestine, he explained, were crucial; they would ignite a flame that could spread across the Middle East. Well, yes, they might just do that—but it's not the sort of firestorm that Bush and Rice had in mind.
Bush seems to be out of touch with the reality of what it takes to establish a democratic government. Democracy by itself is not enough. Before you can establish democracy it is necessary to establish civil law and an ordered society. That can come, as history has shown us, from many forms of government. Conversion to a democratic system of government can only be sustained once a law abiding society has been established.
In Electing To Fight (Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder), the risk of instability in emerging democracies — such as we see in Iraq — are highlighted. In fact, their analysis of factors leading to successful, long-term democracy versus unstable democracy does not paint a favorable picture for Iraq, where all the traits of instability exist: Inflammatory mass media, very poor rule of law, corruption in the government, low income, low literacy, an oil-based economy and an extremely weak administrative state.
Of course, it's impossible to predict the political, societal outcome of events in Iraq or any other country. Iraq may well be one democratic success story that emerges despite the factors working against it, much like some of the post-Soviet nations of Central and Eastern Europe.
Regardless of the outcome in Iraq, I can't help but shake my head at Bush's seeming naivete in pressing so single-mindedly toward democracy, and his simplistic "black versus white" perspective of world politics. Of course it's a strategy he must embrace, a standard Rovian ploy to paint the world as "good versus bad," the implication that if you aren't with the good guys, you must be fighting for the bad guys.
We need a leader with enough maturity to recognize and relate to the complex world we live in. Democracy is not always the first answer.
