[Dialogue] A marriage made in hell

[Harry Wainwright]

A marriage made in hell

Washington's wedding of democratic evangelism to destructive military
campaigns and quasi-racist wars has set democratisation back by decades,
writes Gamil Mattar* <http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/print/2006/788/op2.htm#1>  

Have the brakes been put on the progress of democracy? Is, indeed, the
process actually moving in reverse? To ask such questions would once have
seemed implausible to the positivists who, with a sweep of the hand across a
map of the world, pointed complacently to the countries that were advancing
by leaps and bounds towards democracy or, if not by leaps and bounds, at
least moving inexorably forward. 

The train has started moving and has picked up too much speed to stop, they
insisted. Democratisation is both a pledge and an imperative, they said. It
was a pledge on the part of Third World governments to the international
community which had declared it would no longer put up with non-democratic
regimes. And it was a prerequisite for world peace. Peace is only possible
between democratic nations which don't go around attacking other nations,
said Bush. With Sharansky's book on democracy firmly tucked beneath his arm
the US president promised that peace in the Middle East would follow in the
wake of democracy. In so saying he raised the neo-conservatives' romantic,
if not entirely innocent, banner, "make democracy not war", launched a
campaign to impose democracy on the region using all the violence and
coercion available to the world's only superpower, and drove the Middle East
further away from peace than it has been for centuries. 

The Arab public quickly sniffed out the hypocrisy in the Bush
administration's appeals. There was too much wavering, procrastination and
lack of coordination, and it was not long before the people lost whatever
confidence they had in the efficacy of American support for democratisation
in the region. This erosion of confidence occurred a time when voices from
within America's ruling conservative right began to protest against the
squandering of US material and political resources on policies that only
seemed to augment the power and influence of Muslim fundamentalists in the
Middle East. Washington stopped talking about democracy as a condition for
peace and Bush stopped citing Sharansky as one of his primary sources of
inspiration.

The tide of democratisation is once again ebbing in the Middle East. Nor is
this a situation unique to the region. In the Philippines President Arroyo
has declared a state of emergency following an alleged military coup. Most
observers believe the coup attempt to be a fiction, suggesting that Arroyo
has taken advantage of recent unrest in order to replace Major-General
Renato Miranda as chief of the marines. The president of the Philippines,
who used corruption in the army as a tool to secure her grip over the
country, is now moving to make an accommodation with the army in order to
remain in power. The Manila crisis underscores the extent to which the
democratic experience in the Philippines failed to separate the military
from politics and to offset the demagogic powers of the church and big
business, the two forces that triggered the popular unrest that led to the
overthrow of the countries two previous presidents. 

This, then, is the Philippines that Bush has so frequently lauded as a model
of democracy. That Nigeria, Uganda and other countries have won similar
praise only makes one wonder what Bush means by democracy. Nigeria,
apparently, is democratic because it has a government that came to power
through elections. But Nigeria is riddled with sectarian strife that
subsides for days then flares up for months. It has a separatist movement
pushing for independence for the oil-rich Niger Delta. It could well be the
most corrupt and crime-ridden country in Africa. Uganda, too, recently held
elections, though they were hardly free and fair. They took place against a
nightmarish backdrop in which the insurgent Rabb Army reigns by night while
the government reasserts itself by day. 

In Thailand, that new bastion of democracy and free-market economy,
thousands of demonstrators took to the streets to protest against the prime
minister's abuse of constitutional powers and his encouragement of
corruption, especially the nepotism of which his own family is the primary
beneficiary. Nor is Thailand alone in confusing the worship of money and the
sanctity of the free market over true democratisation and constitutional
reform. 

One of the aims of democratic evangelism, in its heyday, was to herald the
victory of the "Bush principle". Many non-democratic regimes played along,
holding elections so Washington could in turn welcome them to the democratic
club. In most cases progress towards democratisation ground to a halt as
soon as the ballots closed. In other cases the process went into reverse as
forces not officially entitled to participate in the political process
succeeded in circumventing obstacles to their participation, or the polls
brought results of which both the domestic authorities and the Americans
disapproved. 

Elections were held in Haiti a few weeks ago. Once the results were
announced the bloodshed resumed, to the extent that the US was forced to
intervene to halt the chaos. Washington brought in legal experts who reread
Haiti's electoral laws in such a way as allow Rene Perval to claim victory.
Everyone -- the Americans included -- know that Haiti under Perval was a
haven for drug smuggling and organised crime, in which government officials
and the police are involved up to their necks. But what was important in
that corrupt and poverty-stricken nation was that it emerge from the
elections unchanged -- i.e. dependent upon the US and the UN for its
security, for which read the safety of its ruling elite and of foreign
interests. Yet Bush administration officials appeared on cue to announce
Haiti was experiencing an unprecedented period of "democratic stability".

The Congo has a democratically elected government. Apparently it doesn't
count that two-thirds of the country is under the control of rebel forces
and that foreign companies and fortune hunters are sapping the wealth of a
country that must count as the most plundered in history. 

In Kosovo elections brought a new government to power. Not that it does that
much. NATO forces still run the country. Washington, though, could not be
happier about democracy in Kosovo, which is still deprived of its right to
be recognised as a fully independent sovereign state. 

King Gyanendra of Nepal has just held fraudulent municipal elections. He
then called a halt to democratisation on the grounds that elections would
bring terrorists and extremists to power. Washington says nothing against
government corruption in Nepal, agreeing, instead, with New Delhi, its up
and coming southern Asia ally, that Nepal is India's concern. New Delhi
takes a similar position towards Burma. India has learned a great deal from
watching the US protect dictatorial regimes while somehow keeping its
democratic reputation intact. It has seen the US at work in Iraq,
Afghanistan and the Middle East in general, and learned much.

In Kabul a unique balloting process was held, bringing to power an equally
unique legislature. Afghanistan outside of Kabul is another story. It exists
beyond electoral processes, party plurality and democracy. In the rest of
Afghanistan life goes on, just as it did before the Taliban. 

Across the border Pakistani propaganda and American support of President
Musharraf have failed to convince the rest of the world that Pakistan is a
democracy simply because it holds elections. Yet while the Bush
administration absolves Pakistan for its military order it heaps scorn on
the religious order in Iran, though Iranian elections are freer and fairer
than any held in Pakistan. It is Palestine, however, that holds the record
for the fairest and most transparent election in the history of this region.
But Palestine, along with Iran, has no place on the Bush list of
democracies. 

The Bush administration's greatest boast is that series of revolutions of
many blossoms -- the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in
Ukraine, the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyz. Today, though, Moscow is more
confident than ever that the chain reaction has reached its end, and the
Russians are undoubtedly content that these revolutions changed nothing more
than a few faces at the top. Policies remain the same. Corruption is as rife
as ever.

In Ukraine an election campaign is currently in progress, and it is
Yankovitch, the man whose vote rigging sparked the orange revolution in the
first place, who has emerged as front runner. Yankovitch now accuses his
opponents of attempting to rig the elections to keep him from reaching power
by democratic means. Meanwhile, he still tells his supporters that democracy
is impossible in poor countries. 

Another global phenomenon is the campaign against "tyranny by democracy".
Vladimir Putin's NGO law, for example, aims to keep the activities of local
and foreign human and civil rights agencies under his thumb. In Tajikistan
the government has taken measures to prevent foreign embassies and agencies
from establishing contacts with local individuals and organisations. The
Chinese Communist Party has taken a firm stand against the "IT invasion,"
lashing out against the spread of immorality which, it says, serves as a
screen for Western interests. In Zimbabwe the government has expelled the
representatives of foreign NGOs and closed down the offices of many local
civil society organisations. Ethiopia kicked out the representatives of
foreign funding agencies and Prime Minister Meles Zenawi has pledged that
the country will experience no revolution, of whatever hue. Eritrea has
suspended the activities of several NGOs and USAID agencies while in Latin
America, the Organisation of American Unity rejected a US-sponsored bill
calling for a body to monitor Latin American governments' respect for
"democratic ethics". 

Meanwhile, the drive of Arab governments to repel the democratic invasion
has been resumed with renewed vigour, with some regimes busy recuperating
authoritarian territory many believed had been lost forever. 

There are many reasons behind the rising anti- democratic tide. Bush's
foreign policy and his government's flagrant human rights violations top the
list. Washington's determination to turn Iraq into a model of democracy to
be emulated throughout the region has also set the cause of democratisation
back by decades. All any anti-democrat now has to do is point to the
disaster the US has wrought in Iraq. Washington's erratic fluctuations
between ideological fervour and pragmatism have also been inimical to the
spread of democracy. When Washington turns a blind eye to the
anti-democratic behaviour of some of its allies while lashing out at other
countries for the same sins, one cannot avoid the conclusion that Washington
is manipulating the appeal to democracy for its own ends. Such cynicism,
sadly, is contagious. Another reason, impacting the Middle East in
particular, is growing anti-Arab and anti-Muslim feeling on the part of the
West. This, combined with growing Western support for Israeli terrorism,
compounds suspicions over US intentions and frustrates the efforts of Arab
democrats. 

Whatever the cause -- or causes -- behind the retreat from democracy, there
is no doubt that the US has squandered immense moral capital by wedding
democratic evangelism to destructive military campaigns and quasi-racist
wars. This mad concoction has, more than anything else, placed freedom and
political rights out of the reach of many of the world's peoples,
particularly those in the Middle East. Now, in the name of the war against
terrorism, anti-democratic governments are being given ample time to absorb
lessons from the first campaign to promote democracy and to entrench
themselves behind stronger and more sophisticated defences than ever in the
case of any renewed democratic offensive, however far off that might seem.

* The writer is the director of the Arab Centre for Development and
Futuristic Research. 

C Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/788/op2.htm 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060402/64307e8d/attachment-0002.htm