Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
The War on “Democratization”
Álvaro de Vasconcelos is the Director of the Portuguese Institute for International Affairs.
by Alvaro de Vasconcelos
The wars in Lebanon and Gaza constitute a grave threat to democratic reform in the southern Mediterranean. These wars are inflicting heavy punishment on precisely those peoples who have held fully free and fair elections in the region, while eroding the legitimacy of Israel’s democracy.
At the time of its "Cedar Revolution" last year, Lebanon was held up as the best example so far of democratization in the Arab world. The enthusiasm with which the international community welcomed those changes now seems all but forgotten, which is also true of recent elections in Palestine – another longstanding international demand.
The signal being sent is clear: it is preferable that Israel, the only state in the region that abides by the rule of law, be surrounded by authoritarian regimes where political outcomes are predictable than by democratic states where Islamists may well rise to power. It happened in Palestine, and it could well happen in Egypt if free and fair elections were held. As a result, Arab nationalist governments feel justified in resisting serious political reform and vindicated in repressing all domestic opposition, particularly the swelling Islamist movements.
But it should now be clear to everyone that democratization in the southern Mediterranean cannot bypass Islamist movements, and that the success of that process largely depends on the degree to which their full participation in the political arena is ensured.
Of course, this requires their renouncing violence as a means of achieving power. Repressing political Islam, or attempting to "erase" Islamists militarily with total disregard for national political processes (not to mention human life), is not the answer, because it won’t persuade electorates to turn away from Islamist movements. The efforts of reformist governments in the region to integrate such movements into the public sphere have been dealt a severe blow.
Democracies have long known that extreme and indiscriminate punishment – which by definition affects friend and foe, combatant and civilian alike – is a grave violation of international law, as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, has pointed out. They also know that such action fuels radicalism, leading to the kind of tragic consequences that are all too familiar nowadays.
Hezbollah is, after all, a creature of Lebanon’s resistance to Israel’s 1982 invasion, now trying to reassert its influence at home and in the wider region by portraying itself as a champion of the Arab-Islamic cause, namely in Palestine. Any reinforcement of its power will necessarily weaken Lebanon and the region’s democratic forces.
The prolonged absence of the United States from truly active engagement in the Middle East peace process is partly to blame for the current situation. For almost six years, there has been no significant US diplomatic initiative to resolve the Palestinian question or to pursue the Syrian track (Israel still occupies the Golan Heights).
Moreover, just when we were beginning to think that the Iraqi tragedy had made the limits of unilateralism and preemptive military strategies clear to all, the Bush administration encourages Israel’s military action – this time against a country that has painfully been attempting to consolidate democratic reform and to reaffirm its sovereignty in relation to Syria .
Bush’s most promising initiative, promoting democracy across the Middle East, was already dealt a crippling blow by US intervention in Iraq and the ensuing civil war there. Now the project is buried under the weight of America’s inability to protect Lebanon’s fragile democracy and Palestine’s democratic experiment.
The European Union’s feeble response to the warfare in Gaza and Lebanon has oscillated between understanding and condemnation of the disproportionate use of force by Israel (described as "ten eyes for one" by the Finnish presidency), thereby betraying its dependence on the US to end the violence. Europeans will have learned nothing from the damaging disunity, and thus weakness, that they displayed during the Iraq war if this conflict does not compel them to speak with one voice.
What is needed is a European initiative that is backed by a credible military deterrent, consisting of forces from the EU, Turkey, and Arab countries, to be dispatched under a UN mandate to Lebanon and Gaza. Europe must not only put forward a clear demand for an immediate cease-fire and the end to Syrian and Iranian meddling in Lebanon, it must also provide the means to enforce it as well as massive support for Lebanon’s reconstruction. The EU should decisively back the end of the embargo on Palestine and the urgent creation of a Palestinian state.
A common European front could persuade the US to give Lebanon and Palestine enough time to consolidate their national democratic processes, thus isolating the radical elements of Hamas and steering Hezbollah to dissolution of its private army. With the US project in ruins, a credible European policy to delegitimize war and support democratization in its neighborhood has become essential.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2006.
www.project-syndicate.org
 |
 |
 |
| © 2006, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Democracy in action
It’s rather naïve, Bryan, to believe that we really want democracy for the great unwashed. If we were honestly willing to give up the power, we would firstly reform the UN into a democracy.
The truth is that we want to appear morally superior as well as reap the benefits of cheap oil, and leaders such as Bush and Howard help us maintain our delusions.
Strange logic
It's hard to see what further violence could be perpetuated against a suicide bomber, C Parsons, retarded or not. Surely the act is final. Unless you mean punishing his family.
History has shown us that determined groups, like the Resistance during WW2 who paid dearly with their own lives, with the lives of family members, or with those of groups of villagers executed, still fought to the bitter end. Nor did the IRA cave in despite the military might of the British establishment against them.
It's fairly obvious to also point out that, despite the rhetoric pumped out by the present Washington administration and the tears of joy exhibited by the hard right as a type of Iraqi government was installed (safely inside the Green Zone), the violence and suicide bombing continue unabated in Iraq with hundreds dying every month.
But no. despite us hand wringing "apologists" on the left, who were joined in their claims by experienced US military advisers that this would be the most likely outcome, we were told we were wrong, it would end soon and Iraq would become a democracy to be admired and emulated by the entire Arab world. It's certainly not one I would choose to live in and is somehow a subject that our fearless leader in Canberra skilfully now avoids mention of, thankfully having more mundane subjects to divert our attention like interest rate hikes etc.
Nor do Ameer Ali's words sound like "dogma" but more an observation of the obvious-that as Israel continues on its present course, whether you see it as right or wrong, it's fairly obvious that Arabs will begin to side with Hezbollah. Bulldoze innocent people's homes, bomb the hell out of newly-burgeoning Beirut and destroy its emerging tourism, kill civilians in the hundreds ( but more likely it will be thousands), and it's highly unlikely you will teach the Lebanese a lesson; rather, create further troubles for yourself.
But Israel has never been one for compromise and appears determined to create more generations of those who will hate it, and whatever the "left" thinks about it (and as if it could possibly do anything about it ) or the armchair warriors of the right, Israel is producing more of what it believes it can eradicate with bombs.
Key is "Liberal" democracy
I agree with the thrust of de Vasconcelos's argument. David Roffey's link to Tim Garton Ash is also highly salient.
I recall an Israeli friend making the point back in 2003 about Iraq, "and what is going to happen when the Shia in the south are given the vote?" I thought he was being too pessimistic, and still hope he was, but the context since, of the cack-handed invasion and occupation, has muddied the waters concerning the creation of a successful Iraqi liberal democracy even further.
However I would add two points of context for this issue. One is of political theory, the other of practical politics.
Desirable democracies in the 20th and 21st century are of a particular type, namely liberal democracies. They are not winner take all elected dictatorships. Rule of law, separation of powers, civil rights as well as regular and fair elections are key components. Executive government is restrained and made responsible, and citizens' freedoms protected, by more than just regular elections.
Popular resistance movements and guerrilla forces that can win elections on the back of years of struggle and war are often poor candidates for instigating such democracies once they take power. Likewise fundamentalist political movements of all persuasions that take their worldview or particular interest as being universal and solely legitimate.
By the same token democracies constantly waging war struggle to keep civil rights and rule of law intact. Security concerns, and the political opportunities war hysteria gives to governments that must face elections, present continual pressures to erode liberal institutions. Israel faces these problems now, but to a degree one must admire the fact that a form of liberal democracy has survived there despite the state having run a brutal colonial occupation since 1967.
Liberal democracy is also under pressure in countries such as Australia and the US where propaganda exaggerates the dangers of terrorism and politicians see no value in promoting liberal democracy, indeed they prefer to imply a winner takes all principle when talking to their constituents. This in turn provides them with convenient philosophical grounds for the axe they are taking to the actual liberal democratic institutions in their countries.
Speaking of practical politics: history would suggest that while it would be preferable that various "popular" movements renounced their extremism before coming to power they rarely do. However, when offered a share of power they have sometimes proven amenable and thus can be led into more civil processes of politics. This is not easy and nor does it always work, when to negotiate with them, and when to resist them, is major test of politics and policy.
One example where there was a chance of this type was after Hamas's election in the occupied territories of Palestine. Having moved from the irresponsible freedom of opposition to the responsibility of government made Hamas open to influence. This chance was thrown away by a combination of opportunistic, calculating, and dogmatic politicians in Israel and the United States. In some ways it began the chain of events that led to the present tragedy in Lebanon.
Speaking as an Infidel who breathes
You have my admiration C Parsons for the nifty way you side-step any discussion of democracy, and once again dissect your favourite sub-humans – the depraved evil islamo satan. It's a beautiful line in piffle.
What if I were to say that democracy in Israel has mostly worked to confine the extremist elements in Zionist society (say the Stern Gang), and could well work to confine Hezbollah and Hamas to nonviolent means.
You do support democracy, right, CP?
Don't hold your breath
Alvaro de Vasconcelos: "Of course, this requires (Islamist movements) renouncing violence as a means of achieving power."
...in which case they would for all intents and purposes case to exist since violent revolution is their chief raison d'etre.
They will give up violence when, and only when, the cost of violence to themselves is far greater than any possible benefit they can hope to achieve by violent means. Which is probably a long way off yet.
It is absurd to think that proud racists with openly genocidal agendas and who are prepared to murder innocent civilians by strapping suicide bomb belts to mentally retarded children, for example, will surrender violence on humanitarian grounds.
In any case, the newest fantasy being promoted by their apologists is that movements like Hamas and Hizbolla are not really violent at all.
Dogma like that, or the uncompromising belief in the exclusivity of one's own virtue, will make no room for any pluralist heresy which permits Infidels the right to exist anywhere on God's earth.
That's why the political Left has no choice but fawn over Islamist terrorist organisations, no matter how extreme or violent, because anything less would mark thm out as Infidels, too.
A little democracy is a dangerous thing - so let's have more
See also Timothy Garton Ash in the Guardian: