As the world enters its third week with the war in Iraq, there’s another fear, particularly widespread in Europe and America, that any attempt to create a democratic Iraq is hopeless. The country has no experience of western-style democracy. There’s no tradition or culture in which it might find root and grow.
According to scholars of Middle East Studies, a contradictory fear, widespread in the area, is that the experiment with democracy might in fact succeed. A stable and modern Iraq would represent a mortal threat to neighbouring tyrannies, many of which Americans are happy to claim as their friends and allies.
To date two approaches have dominated discussions about how to go about the job of rebuilding Iraq or, for that matter, other Arab countries. One may be summarized this way. Democracy is a western idea, totally unsuited to Arab societies. All efforts to create democratic regimes have ended in failure and tyranny.
The United States should not expect the Arabs to accept American ways or meet American standards, but rather recognize the reality that these people will probably be governed by oppressive dictators whatever they do.
Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton University says, “the purpose of foreign policy should be to ensure that dictators are friendly rather than hostile. Assuredly, this approach is often presented as pro-Arab. In reality, it is the exact opposite and reveals a lack of respect and unconcern for the Arab present and its future”.
Another point of view recognizes the difficulties of creating Western-style parliamentary institutions in non-western societies but proceeds on the assumption that by drawing on their own traditions and ideals of good government, it may be possible over time to develop them nonetheless.
There are several successful democracies in the world today and where democracy is not indigenous, but was either induced by victorious enemies or bequeathed by departing imperialists. Germany and Japan exemplify the first; India, with its vibrant democracy despite all its immense problems, graphically illustrates the second.
Lewis argues that there are dangers in disturbing the existing regime in Iraq. “These dangers are greater than they were in 1995-96, when Iraq was on the verge of civil war and the U.S. missed a golden opportunity for regime change. And they are very much greater than in 1991, when a few hours and a minimal effort would have toppled Saddam Hussein.
“One is reminded of the occasions when Hitler could have been stopped – and wasn’t. The League of Nations did nothing. The same is true now of Saddam. Iraq and its dictator may seem small compared with the power of the Third Reich,” says Lewis.
Of all the oil-rich countries in the Middle East, Iraq has probably made the best use of its revenues, building an infrastructure and, notably, a good educational system at the primary, secondary and university levels. Though the educational system has been devastated by Saddam Hussein, there is still an educated middle class in Iraq, and such a class will contrive to educate its children.
Lewis opines, “clearly Iraq is not going to turn into a Jeffersonian democracy overnight, any more than did Germany or Japan. Democracy is a strong medicine, to be administered in gradually increasing measures. A large dose at once risks killing the patient. But with care and over time, freedom can be achieved in Iraq, and more generally in the Middle East, which will once again enable that unhappy region to abandon tyranny, terror and victimhood and resume its rightful place in the march of civilization.”
Optimists like Joshua Muravchik at the American Enterprise Institute suggest the invasion of Iraq will “unleash a tsunami across the Islamic world,” a tidal wave of democracy and modernization. But the real choice Bush faces – and he certainly knows this – is not between Saddam and democracy, it is between the risks of provoking disorder that might be impossible to control. <
Insight, The Bahama Journal
