On democracy in the Middle East

An interesting comment on BBC News discusses what true democracy in the Middle East might be like. The Bush administration's agenda for a new democratic political order in some of the world's most autocratic countries appears a noble endeavour (at face value) by liberal standards, but are they willing to accept the results of the democratic process if does happen in a meaningful way in places like Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and elsewhere?

There is a fair likelihood that the populations of Arab countries would elect Islam-oriented parties who might well institute varieties of Islamic law at home and/or adopt a more hostile approach to the United States and the West in general. If the US is sincere about its intentions, it will have to come to terms with the possibility that the close relationship it has enjoyed with the likes of Fahd and Mubarak might not continue onwards to popularly elected governents in the Middle East.

A democratic Saudi Arabia may opt no longer to sell its oil to the West. A democratic Egypt may start to develop nuclear weapons. A democratic Jordan may start a new war with Israel.

Democratic experiments in Islamic countries have shown that the people, far from choosing a liberal, secular government, have strengthened the representation of religious groups. Time and again Turks have voted in Islamist parties (only to have them ousted and banned by the staunchly secular army). Elections in Algeria in the early nineties were cancelled when it became clear that the Islamists would win - plunging the country into a bloody civil war. Recent elections in Lebanon, free for the first time from Syrian influence, yielded strong gains for Hezbollah, considered a terrorist organization by the United States and many Western countries including Canada.

We all know about the popular Iranian Revolution of 1979 that sent the secular, West-backed Shah packing and brought in the Shiite ayatollahs. And in Iraq now, the end of Baathist dictatorship and the advent of democracy seems to have opened the door for a government and constitution heavily leaning towards religion.

Even so, there is also a great possibility that democratically elected governments in the Middle East, while religiously-oriented, will be nothing like the Taleban in Afghanistan. The current Turkish government has its origins in the Islamist movement, but has actually proved more liberal and respectful of human rights than its secular predecessors. Islamic parties that hold the majority in one of Pakistan's provinces have shown that they can work under the secular-oriented Musharraf government and have agreed to respect Supreme Court decisions on controversial Islamic bills that they want to introduce.

Some hold that if new leaders come to power democratically, even militant ones, they will soon be moderated by the responsibilities of office - fixing the sewerage and dealing with rising unemployment, for example.

Basic economics will force them to embrace sensible social policies, shun war for trade, show respect for women's rights and have peaceful relationships with all their neighbours, including Israel.

Even if they begin with some repressive policies, sooner or later reality will force them "over the bump" and relatively liberal democracies will emerge.

At the end of the day, the fact of the matter is that religion remains a key influence for the people of the Islamic world. It serves the United States well to keep that in mind when making plans for the region, whether it's the war on terrorism or democracy in the Middle East.