Promoting Democracy in the Middle East - Essay Example

The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Promotion of Democracy Throughout the Middle East The U.S. occupation of Iraq has shown the extreme difficulty in the promotion of democracy in the Middle East. This essentially comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Islamic world and the difficulties of imposing a system of government upon a people. No one would argue with President Bush’s claim that everyone has a basic right to freedom; however, there is a contradiction of terms when people are forced, in a sense, to be free. Perhaps the most overwhelming idea that has spurred the democratization of the Middle East is the idea that democracies “do not fight one another.”1 Though highly idealistic, there have been hard lessons learned in the attempt to implement this theory. The Middle East is the home to many of the greatest advancements and achievements in the world; the numeral system developed in this region is one single example. It is unfortunate that today in the U.S. that many people only think of oil and terrorism when they think about the Middle East. In order for relations to improve between the Western world and the Middle East, then this perception must change. These sorts of changes do not take place over night. It is only with a respect for their cultures and religions that any improvement in relations between our regions can take place. We cannot hope to promote the idea of democracy and freedom without a basic respect for the region. With a thorough examination of the Middle East, we can learn how to approach these countries in a manner that peace and democracy have the most likely chance of taking hold, and we can avoid future catastrophe’s of policy such as the current situation in Iraq. The Arab world is particularly resistant to the U.S. policy of promoting democracy. Though the policy stems from the theory that democracies don’t fight, it is important to realize that the Arab world probably also state that if everybody else thought exactly as they did, there would not be fighting also. We find here a clash of ideologies, and this is not one easily solved: “It is important to recognize that there is no compatibility between being a devout Muslim and a democrat”2. While the U.S. was founded on the idea of a separation of church and state, this very idea is repulsive to many devout Muslims. Indeed, it is often the case that democracy itself is identified with Western influences that the strong Muslim revival itself has opposed.3 By having the promotion of democracy as the primary policy when dealing with the Middle East, this leads many Muslims to feel as though their very values upon which they base their lives are under attack. There is little chance for a constructive dialogue to exist between countries if one country feels that its values are being attacked. The U.S. relation with Israel has furthered the strain between the U.S. and other Middle Eastern countries. The Israel-Palestine border is the subject of much contention and has caused much violence. Many Arab countries view the U.S. support of Israel as another assault on their values. The peace accords between these countries have a history of being broken; though the U.S. thinks of itself as a peace maker in this dispute, it is obvious that this is one of the many sources of contention that Arab states hold against the U.S. This has made talks of democracy even more difficult within certain countries. The U.S. is not the only influence upon the Middle East promoting the idea of democracy; there is some internal movement for this idea also. It is not something that has actually made much progress on its own. While there are people among the non-ruling class population eager to talk about democracy, the has been little to no talk of democracy amongst those in power: “all of the rulers of the Muslim Middle East, old and new, prefer to avoid talk of democracy unless questioned by Western reporters.”4 Until the leaders themselves are willing to discuss the possibilities of free elections, they will remain in a position that will allow them to exert pressure on those who are in support of democracy. This does not mean that democracy is not a possibility in the region, but it does mean that it will not be an easy process. Since there is so much resistance to democracy in the Middle East currently, it is to the disadvantage of the U.S. to focus on the democratization of the Middle East, as it is only likely to make the people of the region more resistant to it. A more realistic way to promote democratization in the Middle East is by attempting to improve conditions in the Middle East so that are more receptive to democracy. First, the economic situations in these countries need to be improved. While there are many countries that are rich from oil, the oil is controlled by the government and the regular people do not share the wealth from the profits. Beyond oil, there are not many prospects: “Other than oil and gas, where the region has 65% of the known world reserve, this is a region that has no comparative economic advantage in anything, a ticking demographic timebomb, and no solutions to its economic problems.”5 The region also faces a high unemployment rate, but it is difficult to tell exactly what the rate is since there are still many thriving black market economies in the region.6 Large black markets also mean that taxes cannot be properly collected, making social programs more difficult to fund. The promotion of economic development within non-oil based fields would be highly advantageous to the entire Middle East, and with more economic opportunities, more people would likely feel as though a system of government in which they had more say would be advantageous to them. As long as the main economic factor of this region, oil, remains within the control of the government, there will be less of a desire for the changes that democracy would bring. Also, one reason for the promotion of democratization in the Middle East is to combat terrorism, but economic growth might do more to do so: “Democracy in the Middle East will not resolve the problem of terrorism, but a more open political environment combined with a greater economic opportunity will likely weaken the pull of extremist ideologies that fuel violence.”7 Not only the financial economy, but the “knowledge economy” of the Middle East is in need of development. Currently, there are 38 computers available for every 1000 people in the Middle East.8 As the Internet allows people access to news and information not authorized by the government, this is a key aspect of the democratization of the Middle East. A key factor in democracy is the ability of its citizens to access alternative choices of information of their own choosing. In this way no single group is able to control what the people of a country think by controlling the kinds of information that they have access to. The knowledge economy could also open up different opportunities in the financial economy also. Instead of directly promoting democratization, the less direct but more effective way to promote democracy is to promote the development of the financial and knowledge economy. One of the main reasons given by the Bush administration for the invasion of Iraq was that it was a preemptive strike against Saddam Hussein and the perceived threat of his supposed cache of WMD’s. As is now common knowledge, the threat was exaggerated to the point where it was non-existent. As U.S. citizens demanded a reason for the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration then turned to the democratization of the country and the overthrow of a tyrant as the main reasons for the invasion. What was originally intended as a short stay has turned into a long occupation. The reasons for this have to do with the dangers that new democracies face. First, in order for the democracy to be self-sufficient, the country had to undergo an economic reconstruction after the armed conflict; however, terrorist and insurgent violence provided huge obstacles for this as violence was constantly erupting. 9 Though the U.S. thought they would come into the country as saviors, this was far from the reception that they received: The Bush administration could claim that more than 30 other countries were involved on the ground in the postwar coalition effort to rebuild Iraq. What the Iraqis saw, however, was not a broad international coalition but rather the U.S and Britain—the most powerful country in the world, paired with Iraq’s former colonial ruler.10 Lacking much support from the international community as well as from home, the soldiers found that they were not welcome by rebel Iraqi forces that were opposed to Hussein’s regime either. The new democracy was not something that was going to just happen on its own; U.S. forces would have to stay for a long time if Iraq was to develop its own strong democracy that wouldn’t crumble when the U.S. no longer was in charge. Second, an Iraqi government had to be set up. It should be brought up at this point that democracies that suffer from a lack of vertical and horizontal accountability, opposition parties, an independent judiciary system, and a control over its own military have a tendency to be even more dangerous than authoritarian regimes.11 These false democracies have a tendency to attack their neighbors and be more prone to internal violence. Another cause for concern is that violent militant groups would be able to legitimately come into power through elections: “Popularly elected Hezbollah representatives have served in Lebanon’s parliament since 1992.”12 Though Islamic groups are unlikely to play a role in the democratization of Middle Eastern countries, for true democracy to take place these groups must necessarily be allowed to exist. When parties feel as though they are being singled out or treated unfairly, then these groups have the tendency to turn to violence. The exclusion of militant Islamic groups would only have the outcome of these groups turning to violence to make their voices heard. Gains in the democratic process cannot be made until these groups feel that they have more to gain from free elections than by the use of violence.13 Elections are the most important aspect of new democracies, and depending on the effectiveness and fairness of the elections, the future of a country hangs in the balance. It is perhaps important to hold smaller elections first, as opposed to deciding upon a president or parliament: “Hold local elections first. No issue is tougher than the timing of elections. Ill-timed and ill-prepared elections do not produce democracy, or even political stability, after conflict.”14 As it can be seen, rushing a country into democracy the way it happened in Iraq is perhaps the most difficult way to achieve a democracy. Only the future will be able to tell if the sacrifices made in Iraq will serve to accomplish the end goals of the Bush administration or whether Iraq will slip into a false democracy where the power is still kept from its people. The way the U.S. implemented its promotion of democracy went far beyond mere promotion in Iraq; it was forced upon the country and its people, perhaps even damaging the likelihood of democracy spreading throughout the region in a positive manner. This method of promotion has had the very real possibility of damaging the U.S. agenda more than it furthered it. This is not to say that democracy has no hope in the region; furthermore, it perhaps is the best chance the region has for peace if a different approach is taken: “Although democracy entails certain inherent risks, the denial of freedom carries much more significant long-term dangers.” 15 As was mentioned, democracies tend to not fight each other. It is in the long-term interest of the U.S. to promote democracy, but not by a method that will make the countries feel that it has been forced upon them. Also, these countries will pose more of a threat if the democracy is not fully realized. The ability to express oneself freely and peacefully will lessen the likelihood of an individual turning to violent means. With more voice given to its citizens, a country will more likely adopt laws protecting human rights, civil liberties, and women’s rights. The Middle East is notorious for lagging behind the rest of the world in terms of women’s rights. The practice of female circumcision, though not a solely Muslim practice, is little more than disfigurement. With a promotion of education in Middle Eastern countries, both democracy and women’s rights will have a chance to develop. Also, it would be wise to let other European powers play a role: “Despite a history of European colonial domination, the perception of Europe in the Arab world is better than that of the U.S. Consequently, it may be helpful for the European Union to take the lead promoting human rights in the Arab World.”16 The process must take place over time. It will not be able to take firm grasp unless it is given time to develop on its own from the inside. If the U.S. were to force these issues, then “too much pressure could force a backlash.”17 If the U.S. acts as though it has enemies on an ideological level, it always will. The invasion of Iraq, though originally it was supposed to protect the U.S., probably achieved the opposite effect by increasing the dislike and distrust of the U.S. in the Middle East. Also, the promotion of democracy in the Middle East has taken a back seat to concerns over security. The Bush administration tolerates dictators that are supportive of the war on terror. What is not realized is that it is the people living in sub-standard condition that will develop feelings of resentment towards the U.S., and this anti-U.S. sentiment will only breed more terrorists. The U.S. support of these regimes is counter-productive; by appearing as an enemy of the common people of Middle Eastern countries by aligning with these dictators, the U.S. is including itself in with the oppression of these people. By promoting equality, freedom, and the advancement of the common people over perceived national security issues, then the U.S. will appear less of an enemy and less of a target. This is what the U.S. ultimately has to gain by promoting democracy. Obviously what Iraq has shown is that the U.S. does not have the means with which to try the methods used there in any other country. The financial cost is simply too high, our reputation in the world would not last if we attempted such a measure, and the people of our own country would not stand for it. Furthermore, we must keep in mind that not every single Middle Eastern country is ideologically aligned. Iran and Iraq have had a long history. Not only other countries, but it is necessary to keep in mind that different ethnic groups within a country have fought bitterly amongst themselves. In order to properly promote democracy, each individual Middle Eastern Country will have to be approached with its own unique method. A correctable mistake that has been made is to treat the region as one homogenous whole that is connected by Islam. As made evident by the 9/11 attacks, the “appearance of stability in the Middle East produced by political oppression and economic stagnation was no more than an illusion.”18 It is simply not enough for the U.S. to let the status quo go as long as it does not mean repercussions for us. If we are serious about the promoting peace and human rights throughout the region, then we will not allow dictators to oppress their people while we turn a blind eye. The promotion of democracy, though done properly will not have immediate effects such as capturing terrorists, will in the long run bring about peace and stability to a region that is still struggling to find its place in the world. Read More