The Boston Globe, among others, brings the news that pro-Syrian Lebanese Prime Minister Omar Karami should be back in the official government limo by the weekend, having captured the endorsement of a majority of Parliament members. In sparkling show of democracy,
[Karami] was virtually assured the nomination after 71 legislators put forward his name during consultations with President Emile Lahoud, who is pro-Syria, parliament members said. Under the constitution, the president is obliged to comply with the choice of a majority of the 128-member parliament.
Wha? They had majority rule legislative bodies already? But I thought Iraq showed them that they didn't have to live under the mantle of tyranny and poorly militaristic haircuts! Apparently not--and whatever they may be saying in public, I don't get the sense that Damascus is still hurriedly packing up the armor for the tank ride home. As Juan Cole notes, it's not only a gross misapprehension of the tumble of events, it's rather ignorant and patronizing towards the Lebanese to think that purple fingers have awakened primitive democratic feelings in them.
By my count, that makes the Bush record for electoral developments on his watch a tidy 0-3-1. I say that not based on their success as processes of freedom and self-determination in the short run of the exercise. I say it based on the utility of the outcomes for the US, and whether the net benefit redounds more in fact to al-Qaeda, bin Laden, and radical Islam in general.
Bush gets a tie from me on Afghanistan, simply because Karzai at least has a tenuous powerbrokering hold on things, and is a genuine anti-Taleban warrior and politician. But he is virtually powerless outside Kabul, and the culture of Koran-based society continues--to the detriment of women and children, especially boys. Anything less than strict Wahabbism is an improvement, however.
Iraq we know about; the Shia have taken near-majority control and have not yet been conclusively states that the Koran will not be the basic legal foundation and active reference to law. Sunni Baathists may be handed some kind of token representation, but at this stage their status as weak minority to the approximate 80% of the country that were once their victims, is fairly well certain.
And then we have the Palestinian areas, which have indeed been vitalized...but much more clearly in reaction to the death of Yassar Arafat. For one thing, when a guy dies, you have to decide on who's going to do the job after him...and elections are a helpful way to accomplish that. And it's not like they've never had elections in the territories, either. But here again, where is this new vigor for the electoral process taking them? Towards the virulently anti-American, pro-terror Hamas, who now control outright half the town councils in the West Bank.
But what about Egypt? Hosni Mubarak has agreed to let a group of candidates from officially approved parties attempt to oppose him. This in fact isn't democracy, it's a sop--and in any case, they're certainly not saying nice things about President Bush's push for freedom in Iraq. Egypt doesn't quite fit the mold, because their elections will be another sham, and the dictatorial secularist will continue to hold power.
In the places where the warm breeze of due process seems to be flowering anew, however, the end result is precisely the intent of Osama bin Laden in attacking the United States: sparking a global fight and awakening the followers to throw off the old regimes and bring about faith-based Muslim states. In Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and to great degree Afghanistan, the "march of freedom" has brought Islamic majority rule to the Middle East--not necessarily freedom.
I should say that the alternative--repressive secular regimes--is not at all appealing either. Insofar as the people are being heard when seeking to rule themselves, democracy in that sense cannot be denied as a good thing. But with Hezbollah and Hamas making political pushes in these nascent "democracies," and the US being forced to back a Shia-dominated Iraq, I don't see a strong future for Arab hotels increasing their rooms available under the American Plan.
--TJ
As you know from weeks old email, I've been trying to wrap my mind around these events. Egyptian bloggers sure don't think Mubarak is suggesting SOP. They're pleased and excited. Other than that, I'm mostly in agreement with your thinking here. At least you credit these events as part of the Bush record. Many on the left refuse to do that much.
On enabling the Caliphate, I'll have to frame a post of my own; but, as we in the US have a project for the new American century, in Israel they had something similar-- A plan to reduce Arab lands to small harmless statelets. Only time will tell which way things are headed.
Posted by: Zap | March 10, 2005 at 08:50
Cole's point on Egypt was that popular parties are still barred, like the Muslim Brotherhood.
As for crediting Bush--not so much. Palestine has nothing to do with Bush, and he was not in favor of Iraqi elections and only backed down to pressure from Sistani. I think his impact on Lebanon is unclear. As far as it goes, I might give him domino props on whatever meager reform is sparked in Egypt.
People and nations adapt, and positive outcomes can flow from negative actions. But the karma meter is still pinned on the bad end for Bush, and based on the harm he's inflicted and the damage he's caused, there will have to be a half-dozen Hong Kongs (the British kind) in the Middle East before he can undo that damage IMO.
Posted by: Torridjoe | March 10, 2005 at 10:05