Just when democracy was finally gaining the momentum it needed, President George W. Bush went and stuck his foot in his mouth once again. In his speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, the president spoke as eloquently as he could of the push for democracy in the Middle East and, in doing so, inadvertently undermined the efforts of any democratic hopeful in the region.
Although a large part of what Bush said in his speech was salient, there was one particular instance in which Bush opened his mouth up a little too wide.
Bush told his audience there were "essential principles" to a good democracy. These principles, he added, include a limited state and military power, safeguarded rule of law, a free civil society, including an independent media, religious liberty, open markets, and political rights for women.
The question begs to be asked: does the United States have a good democratic government? If we go by the President's criteria, then the answer is an unfortunate "no."
First and foremost, anyone will agree that the U.S. government and military is a far sight from limited. More money is spent on the military in this country than in most other industrialized nations in the world combined. Skeptical? According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the United States spent close to $379 billion in 2003 on its military.
Compare this to the military expenditures of decidedly non-democratic nations: $18.7 billion in Saudi Arabia, $7.5 billion in Iran, $1.8 billion in Syria, $1.2 billion in Libya, and only $31 million in communist Cuba. Indeed, one must note that the U.S. role as a world superpower does require greater involvement in world affairs, but must also wonder whether or not such involvement is characteristic of a good democracy.
Though one must note the obvious differences between the political freedoms that one enjoys in the United States as opposed to other parts of the world; one must also make note of the drastic change in political climate since 2001. Recent measures taken such as the PATRIOT Act and other post-9/11 measures are comparable to measures taken by Iran, Cuba and Libya under the guise of national security.
I concede there are democratic reforms necessary in the Middle East; however, when I am back home in Kuwait, I take comfort knowing that I am able to send e-mails to my friends without having to worry about them being read by authorities.
As for safeguarding rule of law, one only needs to look at the cases behind many of those detained in Guantanamo Bay. Countless inmates have been denied their basic rights both as detainees and as American citizens.
In the case of Jose Padilla, the alleged "dirty bomber," it was reported that officials attempted to stop Padilla from meeting with his lawyers, a right later granted to him by U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey. In an article that appeared in France's Le Monde newspaper early this year, Pakistani Mohammed Sanghir reported that officials at Camp Delta beat him, shaved his head and beard (which, to many Muslims, bears strong religious significance), and was initially not allowed to pray.
Moreover, after he was determined to be innocent, he was only given $100 compensation for every month he had spent there, as opposed to the $400 a month he was initially told he would get. Both of these cases illustrate the obvious disregard for the rule of law by the Bush administration.
This ties in directly with Bush's claims that good democracies guarantee religious liberty. This was obviously not the case for Sanghir and is debatable when applied to other Muslims in the United States.
Any Muslim can tell you that after the attacks on the Twin Towers and during the campaign against Afghanistan, religious freedom for Muslims in the United States decreased considerabl; epitomized by the subsequent security measures targeting those from the Islamic world and the rise in hate crimes against Muslims. According to an FBI report in 2001, hate crimes against Muslims rose by 1,500 percent.
But let us not lament — four out of eight isn't that bad.
Despite having delivered the speech to a group that champions democratic gains around the world, Bush's speech probably did more to hinder the spread of democracy than to help it. The clear disassociation of the Bush administration from the "essential principles" of a good democracy severely weakens his call for democratic reforms in the Middle East. His recent war campaign in Iraq amidst deafening cries of protest, both domestic and international, did little to boost his popularity in the international realm. Moreover, increasingly stupid remarks by members of his administration — namely the inflammatory comments made by Gen. William Boykin, who likened the U.S. battle against terror to a battle between Christianity and the Muslim world and openly stated that Bush was in the White House because God put him there — have severely tarnished the administration's image, especially in the Arab world. It may be of added interest that Boykin has not yet been asked to resign.
In his speech, Bush remarked, "the global wave of democracy has barely reached the Arab states." If this wave bears the face of Bush and his administration, it will be a long time before the Arab world bathes in the waters of democracy.