Democracy's prospects
By
Salama A Salama
What's next in the Middle East, now that the first phase of the US-UK campaign against Iraq is over? The State Department and the Pentagon are racing to implement the strategic objectives for which the US administration overthrew Saddam's regime by force. Ambiguity persists, as Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld seem to have switched roles. According to the defense secretary, the Pentagon wants to make sure that the reforms introduced in Afghanistan and those under implementation in Iraq would lead to true democracy. Rumsfeld obviously wants to ensure the continued military presence of the United States in the Gulf. Powell, for his part, seeks to clear the Middle East of the political landmines that exist in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. He also wants to persuade Sharon to adopt the roadmap, a matter that may boost the fortunes of the US administration, at least until Bush is re-elected.
Oddly enough, the Pentagon is in charge of the interim phase. Because the US military will supervise democratisation, the presence of Anglo-American troops in Iraq is now linked to democracy. US officials have more than once stated that their troops will not stay one day longer than needed to achieve this objective. But what type of democracy can Anglo-American guns foster?
Whether in Iraq or Afghanistan, the long years of tyranny make it hard for democracy to flourish. Democratisation has proved daunting in Afghanistan, and Iraq may yet be as problematic. The downfall of dictatorship has opened the way for the emergence of political and religious freedoms in the country. Dozens of groups and parties have sprung to life, with secular, religious, or tribal backing. But most Iraqis, having lived for so long under one-party rule, will find engaging in a democratic political life an adjustment. It is unlikely, therefore, that these emerging parties and groups would find it easy to reconcile their differences. The Shi'ites, to mention just one group, have burst onto the scene with a vengeance, after a quarter of a century of repression, demanding a social and political role at the top of the power structure.
The Pentagon seems tempted to commit a grave error. It may hand over power to Iraqi Americans instead of the locals who have lived years under oppression. It has been reported that 150 Iraqi expatriates, expected to assume office during the interim phase, are on their way back to Baghdad.
The end result would ultimately depend on the Iraqis themselves, on their ability to maintain a constructive dialogue among all factions that have become part of the political scene.
A relevant question is: would the Iraqi model help promote democracy in the region? There is a chance that the fall of Iraq's dictatorship may actually make moderate Arab regimes more cautious about political freedom. Should the interim period in Iraq lead to a predominantly Shi'ite government, many Gulf countries would have second thoughts about democracy.
Elections were held a few days ago in Yemen. Jordan, too, is preparing for general elections -- following a period in which the country didn't even have a parliament. Regardless of how free these two elections turn out to be, their credibility must not be judged solely by Western standards. The credibility of the democratic forces the Americans hope to pave the way for in Iraq and their impact on the region are anybody's guess.
