11 April 2005

Recent events in Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian territories have caused quite a stir on the editorial pages of American newspapers. From protests in Beirut to amendments in Cairo to elections in Baghdad and beyond, many are hopeful that these trends toward democracy will continue to grow in the region.

The proliferation of elections and popular protests, pundits suggest, means that democracy is on the verge of a dramatic victory in the Middle East: we are witnessing a "tipping point" or "paradigm shift" of historic proportions.

This may strike most Middle Eastern readers as wishful thinking, especially in light of the apathy of Arab leaders and their obstinacy to change, as evidenced in this week's Arab League summit conference. At the same time, many readers in the Middle East and the West alike are equally uncomfortable with the Bush administration's claims to being the catalyst of the recent changes.

But the pro-Bush argument demands a serious response because it reveals a lack of clarity in thinking about the nature and sources of democratic change. For credulous supporters of the Bush administration, U.S. policy is about whatever President George W.Bush says it is about. It is a moral crusade to counteract terrorism by spreading freedom.

The pretentiousness of this notion invites an intensely skeptical response. The shelves of bookstores are covered with exposes revealing vested interests in confrontation and war. There are reasons to believe that Bush's stand on democracy serves as cover for imperial hubris, oil geopolitics, and a powerful military-industrial complex.

To be sure, the Middle East policies of the United States - not to mention the policies of many other great and middle powers - have long been captive to geopolitical and resource-based concerns. How else can one explain the U.S.-backed coup against a democratically elected Iranian prime minister in 1953, or indifference to Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds in 1988? Why is there now rapprochement with the authoritarian regime of Moammar Gadhafi, and why has Tunisia's autocratic leader Ben Ali become one of the United States' most favored allies? Maintenance of regional hegemony, not promotion of democracy, would appear to be to be the motive that explains such policies. There are good reasons to be cynical.

The key shortcoming of this response to Bush's policies is that it is primarily reactive in character. It does not directly engage the "democracy in the Middle East" issue, leaving a crucial question unanswered: Is there space in the democracy debate for those who would like to support positive change in the Middle East without writing a blank cheque for the aggressive and contradiction-filled policies of the Bush administration?

Whatever the Bush administration's true motives may be, the issue of democracy needs to be addressed on its own terms. Democracy is much more than elections, and its practices must have deep roots in the soil of local cultures if they are to become perennial - and not merely ephemeral - realities. An outbreak of elections, though positive in and of itself, is not the same thing as a groundswell of democracy. Policies that stir up rather than resolve cultural and religious antagonisms are sewing seeds for future conflict, not democracy.

Support for democracy is most credible when infused with a spirit of collaboration and humility. No nation has a patent on democracy. In essence, democracy is about participation in decisions and cooperation to advance social values, together with the establishment of safeguards for dissenters. Democracy is also an approach to resolving social conflicts in which peaceful means are utilized to attain peaceful ends. Policies that are intended to advance democracy - particularly in regions where one's own past involvement has been ambivalent toward democracy - must themselves be democratic. If not, they risk undermining the long-term cultural and political legitimacy of indigenous democratization projects.

Despite real and enduring policy differences with the Bush administration, Middle Easterners have an opportunity to respond to the democracy debate creatively and on their own terms. This response should be based on two pillars: a call for regional conflict resolution and programs of active engagement with secular as well as religious civil society groups that profess interest in democratic change.

A principled approach to regional conflict resolution is essential because protracted conflicts - including conflicts between competing ethnic groups as well as conflicts between regimes and people - inflame nationalistic and religious passions that undermine progressive change. Democracy simply cannot flourish and persist in a climate of fear and humiliation. The Bush administration's current policies may have unsettled Middle Eastern regimes, but they have also ignited the passions of those who resent what they see as an unabashedly imperialistic foreign policy. Middle Eastern governments and civic leaders must continue to make these points clear to foreign interlocutors, while also doing what they can to facilitate peaceful change throughout the region.

Engagement between governments and civil society groups is also vital, and can be pursued in a variety of ways. Governments should reach out to secular and religious activists alike, and convene dialogues exploring what a specifically Middle Eastern or Islamic approach to democracy and good governance would look like. Middle Eastern leaders can also provide support for much-needed projects on media professionalism and implementation of the Arab Human Development reports. Regional partnerships among Middle Eastern universities could be used to develop curricula that empower future generations with citizenship skills.

By reframing the democracy debate, Middle Easterners can take constructive, independent actions to develop and implement visions for a more hopeful future. People of the region should not cease to be skeptical about contemporary political rhetoric, but neither should they pass up opportunities to make a real and lasting difference. Blaming outsiders for misdeeds and impure motives is a waste of valuable energy - energy that must now become the basis for a program of social and political transformation.

This is not a time for merely cosmetic measures, or for empty words about incremental, guided reform. If Arab and Middle Eastern leaders fail to open real political space and initiate a renegotiation of state-society relationships, external powers will impose their own agendas in the name of democracy.

The signs of our times indicate that one-man and one-family authoritarian regimes that prevail in the Middle East have become historical curiosities. Only governments that are animated by a genuine spirit of democratic legitimacy and accountability can negotiate effectively for Arab and Muslim rights.

Abdul Aziz Said is professor of International Peace and Conflict Resolution at American University in Washington, D.C. Nathan C. Funk is assistant professor of Peace and Conflict Studies at Conrad Grebel University College, the University of Waterloo, Canada.