In Women’s Absence, No Security for Kenya Posted by Marie Wilson

Today, the National Council of Women of Kenya decried their exclusion from the current mediation talks being lead by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.  The Council’s chair, Isabella Karanja, condemned Kenya’s disregard for UN Security Council Resolution 1325 that supports women's participation in mediation.  I’ve been paying close attention to Kenya’s dramatic social and political breakdown, and I can assure you that the exclusion of women from the mediation process is not only unjust – it is a grave sentence for the Kenyan people and their nation’s future.

The country’s rapid descent into violence and relative chaos was sparked by a crack in the veneer of its successful democracy, and attributed to tribal anger and the back-and-forth of ethnic reprisals.  But the violence that Kenyans are suffering, and that we witness in disturbing daily imagery, is rooted in the nation’s lack of access to jobs and healthcare, inequalities in land and resources – all glaring disparities which are funneled into ethnic tensions.  Kenya’s current malaise will only be cured through the acknowledgement of human security as fundamental to state security.  And the issues which make up human security are the issues that women have continually championed worldwide: basic human needs like economic and environmental justice, safe streets, healthcare and education.

Kenya is not unique.  With few exceptions, women have found themselves systematically closed out of the security debate – with severe consequences for national and global security.  Which is why The White House Project, along with a myriad of other groups across the globe, have come together to permanently shift the way we think about, and enact policy, on security. 

In November of 2007, The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands in partnership with The White House Project, the Council of Women World Leaders and the Women Leaders Intercultural Forum, convened the historic International Women Leaders Global Security Summit in New York, bringing together over 75 of the worlds most powerful women leaders in a Call to Action on international security.  Under the leadership of co-hosts Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland, and Kim Campbell, former Prime Minister of Canada, they worked together to tackle the world’s most critical security issues. And in the Summit’s aftermath, hundreds of women and men alike have signed on to this critical cause, committing their resources to uphold the bold imperative of crafting policy that holds human security to be intimately intertwined with state security.  I encourage you to join this vital effort and sign the Call to Action as well.

We are witnessing moves in the right direction, and I am heartened by the women and men around the world currently working on issues of human security.  When I was researching the new afterward to my book, Closing the Leadership Gap, I was buoyed by how far women have come in the field of security since the book’s original publication four years ago.  But there is so much further that we need to go in order to normalize women’s leadership in this area, and truly listen to the women working on the ground when we craft national policy.  From Kenya’s post-election violence to the devastation in Iraq, we need women’s voices to be an integral part of the conversation.  As the scale of violence and human insecurity continues its rapid escalation, the critical paradigm shift on security cannot wait a moment longer.

Was Kos Questioner a Military Plant? Posted by Lorelei Kelly

I was just informed that the guy in uniform this morning.....the one who posed a question to the panel about Progressives and the Military..... was a plant from the Right Wing....one Michelle Malkin to be specific, who has a blog called hot airbags or something self-referential like that.

More on this later. If this is true, it represents the most egregious, ugly, shameful and anti-American tactic I've ever witnessed in my own experience of studying and trying to improve US civil-military relations.
I'm not going to link to her blog, which I just checked out...and indeed, she's accusing the conference of stifling dissent. QED Malkin, you are an idiot.

American Jews and Israel: A Vital Discussion Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Last night I lingered over kitchen cleanup to listen to a program on NPR called "American Jews and Israel." It was just excellent. Listen to it here.

Although I have never been to the Middle East except for a stint as a tourist in Egypt, I have followed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for years. I wrote my final paper on Israel's creation in college...then kept up with it over the years as a student of conflict resolution. Still, this radio program really captured so much of the important discussion that is breaking out all over (from anger over Jimmy Carter's latest book to the Walt-Mearsheimer article last year to the implications of the FBI probe of AIPAC)

I hope these debates crack open the brooding and uncomfortable silence that has persisted on this topic in the USA. From my experience working in Congress...its true that as far as this topic is concerned, dialogue itself has become subversive. Our inability to have a public discussion is stymied in both directions--from criticism of Israel on the Right to criticism of Palestinian human rights issues on the Left. I remember as a staffer trying to put together a simple series of dialogues for a willing group of American Jews, Israelis, Palestinians and others from Arab countries---and being shocked at the offices that either dismissed it outright or refused to help, sponsor, acknowledge or even lift a finger to allow it to be successful.

This debate is painful and sometimes raw, but airing the issues will help the emotional temperature level out. For my own purely selfish reasons, I so want this issue to move forward successfully and for the national tone on the issue to become problem-solving oriented. Why? mostly because--to me--Jewish American philosophy and idealism are the heart and soul of progressive America. Indeed, of liberal democracy itself. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has sucked so much of the attention and energy out of this vital community-- Energy and commitment is a scarce resource. I want more of it put to work here at home, in the trenches, with everyone who is working to set this country back on track.

Needed: A New Rubric for Democracy Promotion Posted by David Shorr

One more post to conclude this guest stint to cover for Suzanne during her maternity leave. I'm passing the guest blogger baton to Rosa Brooks and look forward to reading her contributions.

After Iraq, the folly of viewing elections as a transformative panacea is plain to see. Democracy can't be achieved in one great leap to the ballot box. There need to be favorable political, social, and economic conditions. This leaves a very important question. The essence of democracy actually is the popular mandate. So if we have to approach it gradually, what is it that we're promoting along the way? What changes can and should societies undergo before they have free, fair, competitive elections?

Time for Pharaoh Posted by Zvika Krieger

It was the summer of 2005, and the air in the Middle East was full of hope. Lebanon had just ousted the Syrians, Iraqis were voting, and democracy was on the march across the region. In Egypt, where I had been living, the Kifaya reform movement was taking to the streets and Mubarak was allowing multi-party elections for the presidency. Even the US was hopeful, dispatching Condi to Cairo to pressure Egypt to follow through on its promises for reform. Well, we all know how this story ends. Lebanon and Iraq fall into chaos, and Egypt remains the same old authoritarian state we’ve grown to love.

It seems like the time has passed for the US to pressure Egypt on reform—both the presidential and parliamentary elections in Egypt have come and gone, and politics seem pretty much dead until Mubarak decides to pass on the throne to his son, err, retire. Not so, argues Michelle Dunne is a new paper from the Carnegie Endowment. Dunne, whom I met in Cairo last year while we were both attending the annual convention of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party, has a reputation for being quite the insider on the Egyptian political scene. According to her report, the Egyptian government is in the process of introducing a slew of new legislation that would give more power to the parliament, allow political parties more breathing room, and finally abolish the dictatorial Emergency Law. While I wouldn’t get too excited just yet—the Mubarak regime has a long track record of dashing expectations—Dunne makes a convincing case that now may be precisely the right time for the US to return its attention to Egypt.

The larger issue at hand is America’s relationship with the “Axis of Good”—the benevolent dictatorships in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia that have gotten a free pass on reforms because of their generally pro-American behavior. Isn’t the central tenet of the Bush democracy doctrine that repression breeds terror, regardless of how Bush-kissing these dictators are? I don’t want to underestimate the value of having these leaders “on our side,” but there is a middle ground between militarized regime change and absolute negligence. Remember that most of these regimes are on our team because it benefits them—whether it’s countering the rise of Iran or preventing the spread of militant Islam to their own countries. Even just a little bit of nudging on reform could go a long way with these countries—and might be a way for us to do something good for democracy in the region.

UPDATE: Looks like Condi did not take my advice: Rice Speaks Softly in Egypt, Avoiding Democracy Push (NYTimes)

Hey, I Heard About This Democracy Concert Posted by David Shorr

A lot of blog has already been spilt over merits and pitfalls of organizing democratic nations into some kind of alliance, but I'd like to take my shot. In case anyone missed it, the issue was the subject of an extended debate over on America Abroad; this tag gives a partial sampling. Formal articulations of the idea can be found by Daalder and Lindsay in American Interest and Ikenberry and Slaughter in their final Princeton Project report (potential terms as a basis for a concert of democracies are in an annex, but the entire report is a must-read).

My main problem is with the extremely strange timing of an American push for a major new international organization. This is hardly the time for the United States to go forum-shopping. I just don't know how to square this with the depletion of our moral authority account.

Hong Kong and Human Nature Posted by Marc Grinberg

HONG KONG -- I've always assumed that political freedom is a fundamental human desire.  Men would sacrifice great treasure and, for some, life itself in pursuit of this liberty.  Recent events seemed to confirm this assumption - Iraqis risking death for the chance to vote, students in Iran facing violent reprisals and jail time for protesting the government, the Orange Revolution, etc.

However, after spending a week in Hong Kong, I'm no longer convinced that the fundamental-ness of this desire is universal.   While I still believe that political freedom is a universal desire, I'm not sure that it is universally fundamental - that is, that for all people it trumps all (or most) other desires.

I asked a Hong Konger (yes, that's the nationality of a person from Hong Kong) friend of mine to tell me about democracy in Hong Kong.  "It sucks," he replied. "Because it is not democracy at all."  In Hong Kong the chief executive is hand picked by China.  The legislature has 60-seats: 30 elected by direct election and 30 elected by functional constituencies, that is interest groups with close ties to Beijing.  Freedom House scores political freedom in Hong Kong a 5 out of 7, where 1 is completely free and 7 is Belarus.  Not what you expect from "Asia's World City."

"Why then does the status-quo persist?" I asked. "Why don't the people of Hong Kong push for greater democracy?"  Hong Kong, after all, is one of Asia's most Western cities - the people are certainly exposed to liberal ideas about democracy.  And opinion polls show large majorities of Hong Kongers do in fact want greater democracy.

"People in Hong Kong are practical," he responded.  By this, he meant that a push for greater political freedom would inevitably cause instability and, at least short term, interruptions in the economy.  Most Hong Kongers are first and foremost driven by money.  This may now be cliche, but from my observations it seems to be true (I have dozens of stories if you ask nicely).  If the fight for political freedom causes even short-term drops in wealth, then it is not a sacrifice most are willing to make.

So what does this tell us about democracy and human nature?  Is it possible that the desire for political freedom arises not from nature but from nurture?  That is, do we yearn for democracy because we have been taught (through culture and education, etc.) that it is a fundamental right and not because it is an intrinsic human instinct?  And if this is the case, does it change how those of us who support the promotion of democracy abroad go about doing it?

Abu Aardvark's Puzzle: The Stickiness of Autocracy Posted by Shadi Hamid

Marc Lynch (aka Abu Aardvark) poses the question of why Arab autocracies have proven so durable, seemingly immune from the winds of reform? After all, weren’t we talking about the blossoming, blooming, burgeoning “Arab Spring” just last year? As Lynch notes:

Many of the things which [USC economist Timur Kuran] expected to spark this bandwagon have in fact now happened:  the Iraq war toppled Saddam, the post-Hariri Lebanese protests drove out the Syrians, some brave activists began demanding change (Kefaya), Arab satellite TV broadcast it all widely.  But Arab regimes look as entrenched as ever. That has to be something of a puzzle. 

Of course, Lynch is goading us a bit here. It’s really not as mysterious as it sounds and I’m sure Abu Aardvark is well aware of how Spring turns to Summer.

Here are three considerations which may help clarify the matter, the first of which should be obvious to even the most unseasoned observer:

1. US policymakers cannot pretend to be puzzled at the Arab world’s “democratic deficit,” because they are a big part of the problem. Despite all the fanfare to the contrary (i.e. the sweeping Wilsonianism of early 2005), the Bush administration continues to actively lend economic, military, and moral support to some of the region’s most stalwart dictators, including those in Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. Yes, it’s a long list. Well, then, why do we support these dictators? Because, apparently, or so we’re told, the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t. We’re afraid that Islamists will come to power through democratic elections. So we opt for sham, façade, imaginary      democracy. With that said, the “Islamist dilemma” is not an easy one to resolve and there are legitimate concerns about how to handle it. I’ve tried to address this here, here, and here.

2. The existence and strength of political Islam is also an important factor from the standpoint of Arab domestic politics. In Eastern Europe and Latin America, the primary cleavage between regime and opposition was economic. However, in the Middle East, religion is the primary cleavage (i.e. Islamism vs. secularism) and this fact complicates matters quite a bit. In such a context, divisions between government and opposition are not a matter of differing public policies, but rather one of the raison d’etre of the state itself. Politics, thus, becomes an existential concern and, in extreme cases, a matter of life and death, as it was during the fated Algerian elections of 1991. The zero-sum nature of Arab politics makes democratic compromise that much more difficult.
   

Here’s another way of looking at it: guaranteeing regime actors that (after they are voted out of office) their private property and Swiss bank accounts will be protected is one thing. Ensuring that their very way of life will not be “affected” is altogether another. Rich people can still live rich under a leftist regime. The “bourgeois” lifestyle, on the individual level, will not be affected in any significant way. An Islamist-led regime, however, will initiate at least some changes which would have direct bearing on the private sphere (i.e. family law, private status law, women’s issues, artistic expression, alcohol consumption). Generally, people are more able to reconcile themselves to changes in public policy. The private sphere, on the other hand, is often seen as “untouchable.” Understandable fears of future Islamist intervention in “cultural production” may, then, provoke relevant regime actors to act in ways that are not necessarily in accordance with their rational self-interest. A good barometer of this is the, I suspect, uniquely Arab phenomenon of secularists and liberals warning that they will “leave” if Islamists come to power.

What Comes First - Elections or Institutions? Posted by Shadi Hamid

It is usual for opponents of democracy promotion to belittle elections and elevate institutions. This is a variation of the prerequisites argument – that before you push for democracy, you must first have various indices satisfied (i.e. strong middle class, liberal elites, economic growth). This argument often doubles as a high-minded way of saying that third-world peoples – and particularly Arabs – need to be like us before they can enjoy democracy. 

With that said, there is no doubting that it is better to have democratic institutions then not to have them. Democratization in, say, Egypt would be a less risky and contentious affair if well-rooted, legitimate institutions were in place.

In emerging polities, the question has always been whether institutional arrangements have the capacity to absorb the participatory demands of the electorate. Where institutions are weak, what Samuel Huntington calls “wild democracy” or “mass praetorianism” is more likely to take hold. Where institutions are autonomous and legitimate, even the most reckless demagogues will fail in their efforts to transform the political structure. This is why the Bush administration has failed and will continue to fail in its bid to do away with the Geneva conventions, legitimize torture, establish military tribunals, and impose Orwellian legislative projects (i.e. the now-defunct Patriot Act II). The lesson here is that institutions matter.

However, there are some problems with applying such a lesson to the Middle East. The US-supported autocrats now in power have gone out of their way to erode and stunt the development of indigenous institutions, for such institutions present a formidable threat to their unquenchable thirst for power and control. Which is why it is not surprising that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has spent a good chunk of his reign harassing the country’s venerable and relatively independent judiciary (one of the few holdovers of Egypt’s pre-1952 “liberal era”) and making the establishment of new political parties a nearly impossible endeavor. The Mubarak regime, one might argue, has tried to build (or maintain) some kind of "middle class" – but a “middle class” which is dependent on government largesse and therefore rendered incapable of exerting democratic pressure on Egypt’s rulers. One would hope that something as basic as a “Vice President” would exist in the netherworld of Egyptian politics. It does not. There is no institutionalized mode of succession. Then again, I suppose you don’t need one if you’re planning on making your country into a monarchy.

Democracy after Bush: 10 Lessons for Progressives Posted by Suzanne Nossel

One major piece of fallout from the Bush foreign policy era is the discrediting of America's role in promoting democracy around the world.  A few days ago, I heard a Senate candidate recounting what I assume was a line he uses on the stump; something to the effect that by making the mistake of holding elections amid a population that suffers from poor education, an absence of civic institutions, and no tradition of the rule of law, you will wind up with Hamas in power.   

While Americans are right to conclude that elections alone do not a democracy make, this does not mean its wrong to support free elections in places that fall well short of the criteria for full-fledged democracy.   Here are 10 conclusions I draw after 10 years of democracy promotion the Bush way:

1.  The U.S. must remain at the forefront of promoting democracy worldwide - The hangover of the Bush years will lead many to urge retreat from efforts to advance democracy in farflung places, on grounds that such work is costly, dangerous, and bound to fail.  While the impulse is understandable, this would be a huge mistake.  America's role in fostering democracy and aiding democrats the world over helped fuel us to superpowerdom during the first half the twentieth century, and keep us there during the second.  This drive was behind many of America's greatest contributions to the international system - including the creation of the multilateral order and the rise of great democracies on all continents.  We cannot throw the baby of democracy promotion out with the bathwater of Bush Administration policies.

2.  Democracy is not the same as pro-Americanism - One of the rationales behind American support for democracy is the idea that Democratic regimes are more inclined to support the US.  While this is true in the long term, the effect is neither immediate nor universal, as we've learned the hard way in the Palestinian territories, Lebanon and - arguably - Iran.  Where there are longstanding grievances, immediate resentments, and/or political elements who rally support based on anti-Western and anti-American agendas, the democracy won't necessarily temper these sentiments.  Americans need to understand that fostering democracies around the world will benefit US interests over time, and not to expect immediate gratification in the form of pro-US governments.

3.  Democracy delayed will be seen as democracy denied - The US cannot afford to take the position that where democratic elections may result in the rise of extremist or anti-US elements, such elections should be indefinitely postponed.  If there are reasons to believe feasible, relatively quick steps can be taken to foster more free and fair elections, there may be nothing wrong with advocating that those happen first.  But a position that only once US-friendly parties are poised for victory does a population deserve to elect its own government will be seen as self-serving and hypocritical. 

4.  Elections are necessary but not sufficient for democracy - Rather than downplaying the importance of elections, US policymakers should place more emphasis on dimensions like the development of democratic institutions; the building of an independent judiciary; freedom of the press and of expression; civic education; a firm state monopoly on the use of force, and more.  These get short shrift because they take more money and time, and don't provide the same photo ops as peasants waving ink-stained fingers in the air.  In Eastern Europe and elsewhere, the US, other Western governments and international bodies have gained experience promoting a full range of democratic accouterments.  We need to get to work as energetically in these areas as we do in the business of holding elections.

5.  Pro-democracy and anti-corruption must go hand-in-hand - The big lesson of Hamas' victory is not that elections were a bad idea, but that West's erred glaringly in failure to ensure that the previous Fatah-led government provided adequate levels of law and order and social services to sustain its hold on power.   By most accounts, Hamas' win reflected less popular extremism than abject frustration with the corruption and ineptitude of the Fatah regime.  Similar tendencies are reportedly behind Hezbollah's popularity in Lebanon.   It is no surprise, and is laudable, that voters prize competence and reject corruption.  The West needs to do what it can to ensure that they don't need to vote in violent extremists in order to get them.

The Folly/Wisdom of Exporting Democracy Posted by Shadi Hamid

An article of mine on the "wisdom of exporting democracy" is out today on TomPaine.Com. For an alternative view, check out Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman's "The Folly of Exporting Democracy." I guess it's sort of a showdown between a "democracy-centric foreign policy" and "ethical realism." In any case, here's the beginning of my piece:

Some commentators —including most recently the American Prospect’s Matt Yglesias —have argued that the central problem in the Middle East is not so much its lack of democracy but, rather, “the enduring legacy of imperialism.” According to this line of reasoning, the solution to our Mideast dilemmas would be to change the policies that Middle Easterners hate the most. Unfortunately, the list of grievances is so long, that to actually redress them would, one suspects, take a very, very long time. Moreover, in a region where our vital interests are engaged, it is unlikely that an avowedly “anti-imperialist” foreign policy—whatever that might mean in practice—will stand a chance of being supported by either political party. More fundamentally, however, this diagnosis fails to grasp the real source of our difficulties in the Middle East.

It’s not so much that people are angry at us, but rather that people have no political outlet with which to express their anger in a peaceful, legitimate manner.

Even if the intractable Arab-Israeli conflict was to be solved through hands-on American diplomacy, it would be shortsighted to think that this would be the victory that some imagine it will be. For if the conflict is resolved, it does not change the fact that millions of Arabs live in humiliation, treated as little more than petty subjects, to be manipulated, controlled and repressed at will. The greatest indignities Arabs and Muslims face—the ones that, for them, are most immediate and tangible—come from their own authoritarian governments. And of course, we, in our continued support for unrepentant autocrats, are complicit.

As long as Muslims have grievances against us (and they most certainly will for the foreseeable future), then the only sustainable American response is to promote those democratic mechanisms that will absorb, temper and channel such sentiments in a constructive fashion. Only when their governments are responsive to their needs and frustrations will Muslims be able to shake off the humiliation and powerlessness which has been the prime mover of terror and extremism.

Read the whole thing here.

Responding to Spencer Ackerman (or, how to cure my democracy "fetish") Posted by Shadi Hamid

As mentioned yesterday, The New Republic’s Spencer Ackerman, in a response to my American Prospect article, questioned the wisdom of a “democracy-centric foreign policy” and, moreover, wondered aloud whether I had a democracy “fetish."

Unfortunately, Ackerman is unable to grasp the fundamental nature of the "democratic dilemma" which has afflicted us for so long in the Middle East. For starters, he profoundly misunderstands the nature of political Islam. He claims that the US "is insane to promote democratic elections in which the victors proclaim eschatological hostility to it.” But not all Islamists proclaim “eschatological hostility” to America and to think so is to fall under the illusion that Islamists are uniformly crazy, irrational fanatics. This is simply not true. If we put aside the exceptional cases of Hamas and Hezbollah, mainstream Islamist groups - while they may in some instances be reactionary and/or exclusivist - are not, as Ackerman assumes, “radical." Unlike Hamas and Hezbollah, most Islamist groups – such as Turkey’s AKP, Morocco’s PJD, Tunisia’s Al-Nahda, and the Jordanian and Egyptian branches of the Muslim Brotherhood – are not armed or have military wings. Not only that, they have explicitly renounced violence and committed themselves to playing by the rules of the democratic game.

In Jordan, the Islamic Action Front is the largest opposition party in parliament and has generally had a working, if somewhat tense, relationship with the Hashemite monarchy. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has 88 seats in parliament and provides social services to millions of people. With that said, I’m not going to pretend that these Islamists (many of whom I have interviewed at length) are paragons of liberalism; they most certainly are not. Their views on women's rights, status of minorities, and implementing Islamic law leave much to be desired. They have, however, evolved in recent years, focusing less on empty religious sloganeering and more on the importance of democratic reform. For better or worse, they are well-rooted in society and represent a broad sector of the Arab electorate. Ackerman, it appears, would like to wish these groups away. In doing so, he is guilty of the same thing he accuses me of: mistaking “the world that American liberals would like to live in for the actual one that American liberals must confront.” These groups exist and, if democracy ever comes to pass in troubled Arab lands, then Islamists coming to power will be part of the package, whether Ackerman and I like it or not (as has already has happened in Turkey and Iraq, both of them allies).

It seems Ackerman only wants democracy if it produces nice, docile pro-American Arab liberals. Well, I’ve made the point over and over – pro-American Arab liberals are pretty much a figment of our imagination. For all intents and purposes, they don’t really exist (although I suppose this depends on how you define "pro-American"). As a liberal and a believer in liberalism, I wish it were otherwise but there are facts on the ground and we have to, at some point, face the Middle East as it is, not as what we would like it to be. The democrat's greatest test, after all, is supporting the democratic rights of those he disagrees with.

Building on his unsound foundation, Ackerman is essentially telling us that we shouldn’t promote democracy because Arabs hate us. He seems to forget that one of the reasons they hate us is because, well, we don’t promote democracy. Instead, we’ve been propping up the same ruthless dictators who have been oppressing and torturing their own people for decades. As long as we remain complicit in propping up these despicable regimes that betray everything our country has ever hoped to stand for, Arabs will never begin to trust us, believe us, or "like us." Their rage will continue to fester with no outlet for expression. And I think we know what can happen if the rage of millions of young men has no political outlet. For all their faults, at least the neo-cons were able to recognize as much.

Mexico -- A Silver Lining Posted by Michael Signer

The coverage of the upcoming electoral stalemate in Mexico's Presidential election has an ominous tinge.  The New York Times tells us:

In the meantime, the way the candidates manage themselves and their supporters will determine whether or not this stalemate weakens or strengthens Mexico's young democracy.

After a tumultuous night in which both candidates claimed victory and held rowdy celebrations, conflicting feelings of concern rippled across a nation that is averse to political violence and that has lived through decades of electoral fraud.

Without being an expert on Mexico, I still think it's worth noting the silver lining here.  Mexico faces a test of the essential premise of the rule of law -- judicial review of political contests -- should prevail, no matter how much anxiety is provokes internally about possibilities.   And if the last two days of head-clutching are any indication, it's looking good that Mexico will take the democratic path this time around.

If Mexico -- a country that was run, dictatorially, by a single party for decades -- passes the test, it will demonstrate its ascension into the community of modern democracies.

In the Face of Repression Posted by Shadi Hamid

The regime of Egyptian President-for-Eternity is in full repression mode, arresting pretty much anyone it doesn’t like. Yesterday, Ibrahim Eissa, the liberal editor-in-chief of al-Dustour, was handed a one year prison sentence for his criticism of President Mubarak. Today, the ruling National Democratic Party shoved through parliament the horrendous Judicial Authority Law. The Egyptian government is still apparently grappling with the idea of “due process,” and it appears they remain steadfast in their belief that human rights standards are not “appropriate” for Egypt, due perhaps to its “cultural specificity.” More than 700 members of the Muslim Brotherhood have been arrested for belonging to a “secret,” “illegal” organization, which is rather absurd when you think about it, since the Brotherhood is the largest opposition group in parliament, holding 20% of the seats.

In times like these, one hopes and prays (since this is the kind of thing that may require intervention of a divine nature), that after God knows how many years of mutual acrimony, Egypt's notoriously fractious opposition will get its act together, put its squabbles behind it, and unite behind an inclusive pro-democracy platform. This means that leftists, liberals, secularists, and Islamists need to work together because they share one thing in common – a hatred of Arab autocracy and a desire for a democratic Egypt.

It is worth recalling that successful democratic transitions in Latin America and Eastern Europe were facilitated by broad-based opposition coalitions which were able to unite behind inclusive platforms. A culture of compromise prevailed as key players were able to reach a basic consensus on key issues. In the Arab world, however, the opposition has been paralyzed by ideological cleavages – until now (or so we hope at least).

To be sure, the ideological cleavages still exist but, in the shade of regime brutality, there are signs that liberals, leftists, and Islamists are beginning to grasp the need to get over the past and work together, today, against a common adversary. Which is why I found the blogger-activist Alaa Abdel Fatah’s recent declaration of solidarity with the Muslim Brotherhood quite interesting.

Good News from the Arab World Posted by Shadi Hamid

Finaly, good news from a region that loves bad news. If you doubt the transformative power of democracy, I suggest you read this article on the increasingly important role of women in Kuwaiti politics. In May 2005, parliament, after a long, arduous battle, granted women the right to vote. Today, 13 months later, hardline Islamists - who for years had fought tooth and nail against women's suffrage - are aggressively reaching out to women and courting their votes. When women represent more than 50% of the electorate, then even hardline conservatives will have no choice but to bow to electoral imperatives. Kuwaiti Islamists, like everyone else, want to win elections - and they can't win without the support of women. Even in the most traditional, tribal societies, democracy's power cannot be denied. One reason, among many, why Americans must not lose faith in promoting democracy abroad. Choice quote:

Hundreds of voters gathered Saturday night in a cavernous wedding hall in a conservative suburb of Kuwait City to hear Walid al-Tabtabaei, an incumbent Islamist candidate, give one of his last speeches before the parliamentary elections on Thursday. The voters compared notes on candidates and debated their merits. One thing set them apart from the voters who attended political rallies in past elections here, though: almost all were women. "The M.P.'s used to vote against us; now they are wooing us to vote for them," said Lulua Abdullah al-Omari, a mother of four, who sat in the front row and was eager to talk politics. "Women suddenly have more value in this society."

When Democracy and Liberalism Collide Posted by Shadi Hamid

We are liberals. As such, one presumes that we believe in not just democracy, but democracy of a distinctly liberal nature. Democracy, without liberalism, can lead to “mass praetorianism,” rule by decree, and a kind cynically constructed populism. One presumes that these are not good things and, for those Americans that were not sure, the last five years offer a rather fascinating window into democracy’s fragility once its liberal safeguards begin to erode, first slowly then with greater intensity. The fact that America has resisted the careful onslaught of the republican-dominated legislative, executive, and judicial branches is a testament to the strength of our founding institutions, their durability, and their unmistakable ability to adapt, however haltingly, to the most urgent of challenges.

Our preference for liberal democracy, however, is not one without inconsistency. It is often assumed that promoting democracy abroad is in keeping with our founding ideals. It of course is, but it is less tidy than it might otherwise appear. In the context of the Middle East, more democracy leads to less liberalism. In societies where the electorate is illiberal, their illiberalism will be reflected in the kind of leaders they elect. Not only that, these leaders will invariably be more “populist” and anti-American than the “pro-US” dictators which preceded them. This makes sense – democracy is supposed to reflect the will of the majority.

The rising levels of anti-Americanism, thus, complicate our efforts to promote democracy in the Arab world. The more anti-Americanism there is, the more promoting democracy abroad will bring to power people who don’t like us too much (i.e. Islamists). Arab democracy in 2006 will look different than it would have in the less contentious times of, say, Bill Clinton (whom Arabs have always had a soft spot for).

Democracy Promotion Posted by Morton H. Halperin

This week, over at the Council on Foreign Relations' website, I am debating the merits of "Democracy Promotion as Policy" with Paul Saunders.  You can read our discussion here.

Also, I will be returning from my blogging hiatus shortly, so stay tuned.

2010: A Taxi-Cab Odyssey Posted by Shadi Hamid

Cairo, Egypt. May 2010. The following conversation takes place in a beaten up cab from the 1950s that does not (and cannot) have any seatbelts. Unable to stand the enveloping silence, I make some small talk with the driver:

Shadi: It’s kind of hot today.
Taxi Driver: Yep.
Shadi: Well, what about the political “weather” then (this makes sense in Arabic)? To be honest, I’m pretty disappointed. Always bad news. Gamal [Mubarak] is turning out worse than his father. I didn’t think it was possible.
Taxi Driver: Tell me about it.
Shadi: Well, thank God the US is serious about democracy promotion. The White House will give Gamal a panic attack with its grandiose Wilsonian lectures on political reform.
TD: Who is Wilson?
Shadi: He was an American president 90 years ago. He believed in self-determination for third world peoples, and presumably for Arabs as well.
TD: We want this man Wilson.
Shadi: So do I but, alas, he is dead.
TD: May God be praised. To God we must all return. Still we don’t believe Clinton’s wife is serious in her democracy talk. She talks like Bush. Nice words but empty words. In the Arab world, as you know, we don’t believe what politicians say.
Shadi: Well, I guess that’s one thing we have in common. But what about the US postponing a Free Trade agreement for another five years because of the lack of progress on democratic reform?
TD: Details. Deep down, you don’t want democracy. Ya captain (i.e. Mister) - we remember what happened in Algeria.
Shadi: But that was 20 years ago.
TD: …we also remember what happened in Palestine, when you asked for elections and then you changed your mind after.
Shadi: Ummm...
TD: Plus, you Americans pretended like you didn’t want Gamal to succeed his father. But you could have stopped him if you wanted.
Shadi: 

(silence)

Shadi: Things seemed a lot better when Bill Clinton was president, didn’t they?
TD: May God grant Bill Clinton continued success and prosperity.

How to Join the Friendly Dictator Club and Live to Tell About It Posted by Shadi Hamid

It appears that the serial offensiveness of the US decision to restore diplomatic ties with Libya has been lost on most observers. It marks yet another instance of the Bush administration’s implacable disregard for Arab democracy. If anything, this was exactly the time to say to Libya that, yes, we are happy that you have renounced nuclear ambition but we will not be fully satisfied until you renounce your autocracy. Libya, unlike many of the other egregious human rights offenders in the region, is actually what may be termed a “full autocracy,” meaning that there isn’t even the charade of electoral window-dressing. There is, however, the well-scripted, although somewhat tiresome charade of Muammar Qaddafi’s “third way,” forever enshrined in the laughable “Green Book,” proof that sometimes the first and second ways are the better bet. In any case, there is a well-deserved, although now crumbling, consensus that Qaddafi is (was) a most despicable man, and one, to boot, with a fashion style bordering on the horrific.

Then there was the overwrought self-aggrandizement that seems to have become a mainstay of the State Department press operation. Condoleezza Rice declared that “just as 2003 marked a turning point for the Libyan people, so too could 2006 mark turning points for the peoples of Iran and North Korea.” She went on to call Libya “an important model.” Well, in 2006 the Libyan people are still living under the same unrepentant tyranny as they were in 2002, a tyranny which allows them no recourse to liberty and freedom - things which, lest we forget, President Bush seemed to believe in quite strongly as recently as January 20, 2005.

Yes, if you’re disciple of Scrowcroft (and it just so happens that Rice is), then yesterday’s announcement was indeed one to get triumphant about. Realism is alive and well. I, on the other hand, am perhaps being unrealistic to expect that any US administration – Republican or Democrat – will be able to resist the lure of dictator-coddling, a favorite pastime in Washington circles. Interests, interests, interests. Well, if this is the case, then the war on terror will not be won easily for an American victory requires nothing less than the dismantling of the authoritarian status quo, a status quo which has made the region a hotbed of all the things we don’t like – extremism, terrorism, fundamentalism, cultural, economic, and political stagnation... The list, as always, goes on.

Torture and Silence: This Year's Arab Spring? Posted by Shadi Hamid

You perhaps doubted claims of Arab autocracy’s renewed vigor? Well then, there is this from The Arabist:

“You bitches. You sons of bitches. This is how it is going to be from now on if you do not behave and know your limits. If you do not behave you’ll have the bottom of my old shoes all over you." These and more were the exact words of Sami Sedhom, Assistant to the Egyptian Minister of Interior, Habib el Adly.

There is torture, Abu-Ghraib style. There is also torture, Egyptian style. Anyone with politically active friends in Egypt has heard the horror stories. More:

Friends of two of the detainees received phone calls from their mobile phones describing how they were being tortured. “We are screwing them right now” were the exact words, raising fears that our colleagues may be subject to the well known brutality of Egyptian police.

Let me just note, once again, that Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt is one of America’s closest allies in the region. More importantly, it receives more than 2 billion dollars of US economic and military aid (in other words, our tax dollars). I spoke over the weekend with a State Department official, who will remain unnamed, about the deteriorating situation in Egypt. He assured me that they have made clear to Cairo their concern over such human rights abuses. But he wondered aloud why some people exaggerate the US government’s ability to pressure other governments to do what we want them to do. So, let me get this straight - you can invade a country, occupy it for a couple years, and spend endless billions in the process, but you can’t get your good old boy Mubarak to respect even the most minimum and basic of human rights standards?

10 Reasons Why the Community of Democracies Can't Be Progressives’ Big Idea Posted by Suzanne Nossel

This past week I joined a couple of progressive brainstorming sessions discussing the new foreign policy ideas that can help us out of the hole.  Oftentimes the question of creating a “Community of Democracies” as a caucus at the UN and a forum for building international consensus is raised.  (I’m now on a flight to Asia hoping to post when I arrive and to be asleep before I can put in all the links, but google “community of democracies” and you’ll get the background you need.   Our own Mort Halperin and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright have been championing this idea for a decade or more.  Ivo Daalder and others at www.tpmcafe.com’s America Abroad have talked about it more recently).  While the proposal has merit, it won’t work either politically or policywise as the centerpiece of new progressive thinking, and here’s why:

1. The Community of Democracies Already Exists -  Mort and Secretary Albright likes the idea so much they went out and created it, getting dozens of countries to participate in a forum that now meets regularly.   The Bush Administration has continued to support the existing COD.  While many progressives now argue that the current COD is too big and diverse to do the sorts of things it should, I frankly don’t see how we get away with dissolving it in favor of something new that excludes some current members.

2. The Idea is Too Abstract to Ignite Excitement Among the American Public – The American public will be hard pressed to rally around a proposal to form a new international organization, much less one whose purposes and membership are, at least at this point, abstractions.  That doesn’t make the community a bad idea, it just says it won’t be “the idea” that jumpstarts a progressive foreign policy platform.  The fact that a version of the COD already exists also undercuts public enthusiasm.

3. Membership Issues Will Be A Quagmire – Particularly now that Iraq and the Palestinian Authority have held democratic elections yielding outcomes that are worse from our perspective than most coups d’etat, its hard to envision how we’d delineate a criteria for membership that would be seen as fair, and yet encircle only those countries who could productively be part of the forum.

4. Noone’s Clear on What the Organization Will Do – Caucusing at the UN inevitably gets brought up as an option, and certainly it would be helpful for us to have more ways of building support for our positions at Turtle Bay.  But the regional, economic and political agendas of democracies are highly diverse, and its not clear what the group could build consensus on.  I believe one of the original notions was a caucus to promote the advancement of democracy around the world but, after Iraq, that’s no longer a proposition most countries will sign onto readily.

5. Concerns About China May Dilute the Organization's Ambitions – A lot of discussion these days in progressive circles revolves around forming alliances and relationships to gird against China’s rise, without at the same time provoking Beijing.  With that goal in mind, some favor shaping a community of democracies loosely so as not to raise Chinese ire.  Indeed this may be necessary to get Asian democracies on board.  But tempering the organization’s ambitions in deference to Beijing could end up defeating the purpose.

The Real Muslim Problem: A "Poverty of Dignity" Posted by Shadi Hamid

This plaintive, almost despairing piece by author Murad Kalam must be read by all those who care about the woeful state of not just the Arab world but of “Islam” itself. It reminds me of my own experiences living in Egypt and Jordan, where I would so quickly become disillusioned by the casual, rank hypocrisy, the jaded fatalism, the fevered willingness to blame internal problems on external, often nefarious, forces.

To see the Arab and Muslim world, is to see, in the most stark of fashion, how a great civilization – one that once led the word in science, medicine, and philosophy – could centuries later have fallen into an ever descending spiral. This is one of the great tragedies of our time. In looking for explanations, it is only too easy to fall back on the facile tropes of cultural determinism and Islamic essentialism. One wishes it could be so simple, that complex realities could be reduced into something more palpable.

Yes, lack of democracy, as I’ve often argued, has a lot to do with it. When people don’t have peaceful, legitimate means to express their grievances, they often express themselves in violent, dangerous ways. But it is not that simple, otherwise how would one account for British-born terrorists who grew up in a democracy but still blew themselves up, killing their fellow citizens ? We need to look at what Thomas Friedman calls the “poverty of dignity” to get the bigger picture.

The Betrayal of Ayman Nour Posted by Shadi Hamid

The language was eloquent, colored with the requisite hues of Wilsonian radicalism: “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.” Today, 14 months later, Ayman Nour, a courageous liberal, dissident, and leader of the al-Ghad Party, is suffering – some say dying – in prison. The Egyptian regime is destroying him, his family, and the movement he helped give birth to last year. This, we should note, is the same Egyptian regime which receives $2 billion in economic and military aid from the US each year. Where is the Bush administration’s outrage now ? Where has its celebrated love of freedom gone ? There is, instead, silence. 

Last week, an email from Gameela Ismail, Nour’s wife, was forwarded to me, alerting supporters to the unfolding events. The following is from an article in the opposition weekly al-Dustour, which describes Nour’s treatment and his deteriorating health:

“[Nour] suffered from a kidney attack and had to inject himself despite not being qualified or trained. He was obliged to use medicine and medical equipment that his family buys. Such practices resulted in sores and wounds in his arms and the veins of his hands, and left black spots all over his body. Moreover, the diabetes symptoms worsened resulting in swollen feet and face, in addition to general exhaustion believed by those close to him to be an attempt on part of the regime to kill him indirectly, unlike the case with others who were killed directly.”

It has been four months since Nour was sentenced to 5 years in prison on blatantly bogus charges. The White House released a statement on December 24th saying it was  “deeply troubled” by Nour’s incarceration. During a roundtable with Arab journalists just before her February Middle East tour, Rice insisted that this was not the time to “turn our backs” on Arab democracy. As part of her trip, Rice spent a day in Cairo meeting with President Mubarak and other Egyptian officials. Mubarak later remarked with characteristic smugness that Rice "was convinced by the way Egypt is pursuing political reform and implementing democracy...she didn’t bring up difficult issues or ask to change anything or to intervene in political reform as some people claim.” Not only that, "she was very polite."

The cause of Arab democracy has been betrayed by those who profess to be its greatest defenders. This is nothing new – democracy in the Middle East has rather consistently been sacrificed by US policymakers at the altar of purportedly greater interests and concerns. We could have expected as much from the Scrowcroftian automatons who profess, at no end, their undying love for “stability.” This administration said it was different and, for a short while, actually acted like it. The democracy backlash continues.

Being "The Good Soldier" Posted by Ike Wilson

An April 13, 2006 front-page Washington Post article by Tom Ricks is the latest and most public account of what has been a rising disgruntlement among a small but significant number of retired U.S. military officers with current US war-policy and strategy toward Iraq, and a mounting clarion call for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The issue, being dubbed already (and quite prematurely) as the 'General's Revolt' is an important issue on the obvious merits: the questioning of the soundness of not only the intelligence but also the planning that directed the United States' invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the alleged paucity of the postwar planning for Iraq's stabilization and reconstruction, and the effectiveness of Secretary Rumsfeld.  But this tale of "revolt" raises other questions -- questions that go well beyond happenings in and about Iraq; questions that speak directly to the relationship between the American Soldier and the American State, and the proper role and limits of military officers in affairs of politics and war. Behind this so-called revolt belies a deeper question more important to the American Republic than Iraq is or will ever be: what does it mean to be "The Good Soldier" in today's day and age? 

I do not claim to have any answers to this question.  But what I will try to offer is an "insider's" perspective on the debate and to provide some professional soldier insight into the true complexities that make this issue much, much more than what many in the punditry are making it out to be -- a sensational story of a mutiny against the sitting Secretary of Defense . . . a precision attack on Donald Rumsfeld.  The real issue of worry is not the SECDEF or the disagreements of a handful of retired generals, but rather an issue of the Soldier and the State.   

Do Beliefs Matter? (Not as much as you think) Posted by Shadi Hamid

“We are not going to cut off the hands of thieves, even though they deserve it. We are not going to force any woman to cover her hair; women are doing this by their own choice.” So says Abdul-Aziz Duwaik, the Palestinian Speaker of Parliament for the Hamas-led government. 

This statement is particularly interesting as it brings into focus the contested relationship between belief and action, ideology and practice, between what is and what ought to be in the muddy and sometimes malevolent realm of politics. Islamists believe from a Quranic or Islamic standpoint that alcohol should be banned, women should wear the hijab (headscarf), and that “every inch” of Palestine should be "liberated." However, beliefs such as these, after being subject to the push and pull of the political process, will manifest themselves in policy outcomes which may not reflect the original belief. Hamas believes that the hands of thieves should be cut off, but they aren’t going to cut them off. This simple fact has implications for how we understand the political maneuvering of ideologically driven groups and individuals. 

Much, of course, has been said about the Hamas founding charter which promises the destruction of Israel. Why this pronouncement should necessarily be relevant to the question of how Hamas will govern remains unclear. While Hamas may believe in the destruction of Israel as a matter of religious principle, it does not necessarily follow that their actions or political behavior will reflect this belief. A wide array of domestic and international factors contrain and limit the available policy options of ideological actors. 

When Islamists act politically, it’s not as if they pick up a Quran or some treatise of an obscure 10^th century Islamic scholar and ask themselves, “well, what does 'Islam,' God, or prophet Muhammad have to say about this particular issue ?” Political actors act politically (and rationally – unless, that is, you happen to be the President of Iran).

The Democratic Party and the Fear of Big Ideas Posted by Shadi Hamid

The Democrats’ have released their national security “plan.” It is possibly the most formulaic and banal document that I have had the displeasure of reading in months. There is nothing necessarily bad about it. There is nothing good about it either, which is exactly the problem. It is a document without even a hint of ambition, one which wallows in the mediocrity and amoralism which appear to have become the hallmark of today’s Democratic Party. Talk but say nothing. Criticize but offer no alternatives. Offer plans without vision. Recycle clichés ad infinitum. In short, the Democratic Party is afflicted by a pronounced aversion to ideas, especially new ones. At least, we could give the impression that we were trying to be original but even this, it seems, would be asking too much. Instead we are given a “toughness” post-it note to-do list:

Policies that are both “tough and smart.” Check.
Kill terrorists. Check.
A lot more equipment for troops. Check.
Stronger military. Check.
Nuclear weapons are bad. Check.

Yes, we got the message – Democrats are “tough.” Being tough on national security is, of course, good and necessary. But what do we actually believe in ? God knows. Or maybe Harry Reid knows but isn’t telling us. (He did, however, tell the Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt that while “we of course acknowledge that democracy is our goal . . . we first have to have stability.” Umm, Mr. Reid, stability was our “goal” in the Middle East for five decades and that wasn’t exactly a resounding success).

The document is subtitled “The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore our Leadership in the World.” One would think that the founding ideal of our country – Democracy – would be mentioned in any discussion of US global “leadership.” But, alas, supporting democracy abroad isn't mentioned even once. Nothing about how the lack of democracy in the Middle East has produced a poisonous environment conducive to the rise of religious extremism and terrorism. Democracy promotion, apparently, is no longer popular. So, instead, we get focus-group approved, watered-down dilutions which masquerade as forward-looking “plans.”

Bush Likes Democracy but Doesn't Like Ibrahim al-Jaafari Posted by Shadi Hamid

I guess Bush didn’t get the memo that trying to oust or destabilize democratically-elected leaders and/or governments is probably not the best idea for a country which claims to be the world’s purveyor of democratic ideals. Doesn't exactly do wonders for our credibility. There seems to be a very troubling trend developing here which is part of the overall democracy promotion backlash which both Derek and I have discussed in previous posts.

First, it started with Hamas, which won a commanding majority in January’s surprisingly clean and violence-free elections, forcing the Bush administration engage in dubious verbal acrobatics. It certainly makes sense to not give financial assistance to a government led by a party which refuses to renounce terrorism. Many have made the point that just as Palestinians have the right to elect Hamas, we have the right to not give a Hamas-led government money. That is one thing. It is quite another matter, however, to actively work toward the destabilization of an elected government, which is apparently what the Bush administration was seriously considering as early as two weeks after the election. The logic went that "destabilization" efforts would make governing impossible for Hamas. This would force Mahmoud Abbas to call new elections, which Fatah would presumably win. Status quo ante restored, Scrowcroft style. (See this excellent post by Andrew Sullivan).

Well, fast forward two months and apparently, we now want to get rid of Ibrahim al-Jaafari, an Islamist who also happens to be democratically elected.

Democracy on Defense Posted by Derek Chollet

I want to second Shadi’s excellent assessment below of the “democracy backlash” and the challenge this poses for progressives, many of whom are looking on in startled amazement, asking how the current Administration has hijacked the democracy agenda and, in turn, undermined it.  I agree that the role democracy promotion should play in future U.S. national security strategy is one of the most important questions we face – not just for how these policies would work abroad, but how they are supported here at home.

Shadi’s argument focuses on Middle East, which is of course Bush’s main focus.  But as Tom Carothers points out in the recent issue of Foreign Affairs, democracy promotion is on the defense in many other places as well – notably Russia, where Putin has systematically dismantled the free press and threatens to effectively shut down domestic NGOs by tying them up in red tape; to Belarus, where President Lukashenko just “won” another rigged election (a result praised by Putin); to Uzbekistan, which effectively booted Freedom House out.  This is happening outside the former Soviet space as well, in places like Zimbabwe -- where Mugabe has driven out foreign NGOs -- and South America -- where leaders like Venezuela’s Chavez routinely rail against U.S. democracy programs.

Add to this the fact that a few recent free-and-fair elections have not gone as hoped – in the Palestinian territories and in the recent Ukraine poll which the hard-liners won (but because of coalition politics will likely not take power) – and many are asking: why is this a good thing?

A survey released today, called the Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index, illustrates this trend.  I have not studied the numbers in detail yet, but here are the relevant conclusions reached:

“Most of the public ranks promoting democracy in other countries as the least important of the foreign policy goals we asked about and seems to doubt the United States can achieve it. Significantly, Americans are divided on whether it will make the United States more secure even if we pull it off. Only 36 percent believe the United States can actively help other countries become democracies, while 58 percent say that ‘democracy [is] something that countries only come to on their own when they're ready for it.’ Six months ago, 50 percent thought the United States was doing well at promoting democracy; this time the number is trending downward to 46 percent. The public is just as skeptical when asked specifically about Iraq. While six in 10 say the United States can at least do ‘something’ to create a democratic Iraq, only 22 percent say it can do ‘a lot.’ In a more general sense, about half (53 percent) say that when more countries become democratic there will be less conflict in the world.”

The message: for those of us who believe that a more democratic world is in U.S. national interests and therefore promoting democratic principles – rule of law, freedom of speech and press, political pluralism, accountable and transparent governance – should be at the core of American foreign policy, we have a lot of work ahead.

Should We Give Civil War A Chance in Iraq? Posted by Ike Wilson

Anniversaries are times of reflection.  As this month marks the three-year anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq we should take some time to honestly assess where we are and where we may be heading in our war-policy and war-strategy toward Iraq.  Part of that hard assessment must be a consideration of whether or not our strategic course -- how we have approached the intervention so far -- has been more of a helping-hand or a hindrance in the Iraqi's quest for a national state . . . a democracy.  An honest assessment considers all possibilities.  And so, on behalf of a full and honest accountability, should we ask ourselves the uncomfortable question: could it be possible that how we are intervening may have reached a point where we are actually stifling democratization in Iraq?  As we strive to assist the Iraqis in the construction of their own democratic republic and to avoid a fall into civil war, might we be inhibiting democracy itself?  In short, should we be giving civil war more of a chance?            

The Democracy Promotion Backlash (and the The Need for a "Third Way") Posted by Shadi Hamid

Suffice it to say that I knew the backlash had begun, and it was to rage with increasing ferocity. I look back now and wonder if I had seen it coming. Perhaps it was inevitable, for there was too much at stake. When ambition exceeds ability, the results can be disorienting, if not outright destructive. This, I worry, is what happened to our post-9/11 efforts, however halting, to promote democracy in the Arab world. The tipping point was Hamas’s shocking victory in the Palestinian elections. But the doubts regarding the wisdom of an assertive pro-democracy posture had surfaced long before in the wake of a series of substantial Islamist electoral gains in Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon.

The animating force (at least in theory) of the Bush administration’s Mid-east policy is (or was) the radical notion that democracy, by allowing people to express their grievances through a meaningful political process, will defeat the frustration and impotence which give rise to political violence and terrorism. Its admittedly stubborn belief in the transformative power of democracy was, as far as I could tell, the only redeeming characteristic of an administration plagued by incompetence and shortsightedness in nearly every other aspect of domestic and foreign policy.

Unfortunately, because of its destructive policies elsewhere, this novel (and useful) understanding of the relationship between terror and democracy was sullied (in the eyes of many liberals) through guilt by association. More problematic was the inability of the Bush administration to live up to its lofty rhetoric. The gap between what we said and what we did grew only more striking with time. Indeed, President Bush has become the anti-Midas of our time. A good message has been tainted, in some circles irrevocably, by a bad messenger.

The Democracy Promotion Backlash (and the The Need for a "Third Way") Posted by Shadi Hamid

Suffice it to say that I knew the backlash had begun, and it was to rage with increasing ferocity. I look back now and wonder if I had seen it coming. Perhaps it was inevitable, for there was too much at stake. When ambition exceeds ability, the results can be disorienting, if not outright destructive. This, I worry, is what happened to our post-9/11 efforts, however halting, to promote democracy in the Arab world. The tipping point was Hamas’s shocking victory in the Palestinian elections. But the doubts regarding the wisdom of an assertive pro-democracy posture had surfaced long before in the wake of a series of substantial Islamist electoral gains in Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon.

The animating force (at least in theory) of the Bush administration’s Mid-east policy is (or was) the radical notion that democracy, by allowing people to express their grievances through a meaningful political process, will defeat the frustration and impotence which give rise to political violence and terrorism. Its admittedly stubborn belief in the transformative power of democracy was, as far as I could tell, the only redeeming characteristic of an administration plagued by incompetence and shortsightedness in nearly every other aspect of domestic and foreign policy.

Unfortunately, because of its destructive policies elsewhere, this novel (and useful) understanding of the relationship between terror and democracy was sullied (in the eyes of many liberals) through guilt by association. More problematic was the inability of the Bush administration to live up to its lofty rhetoric. The gap between what we said and what we did grew only more striking with time. Indeed, President Bush has become the anti-Midas of our time. A good message has been tainted, in some circles irrevocably, by a bad messenger.