Victor Davis Hanson: Why Democracy? Ten reasons to support democracy in the Middle East

NRO ^ | 2/11/2005 | Victor Davis Hanson

[monday]

"And the Japanese did, in 1945?"

Do you think Japanese and Arab/Islamic culture are remotely similar? Japanese culture was more modern and advanced in the nineteenth century than Arab/Islamic culture is today.

[M 91 u2 K]

Not to mention Japan held elections on their own in the 1920's!

During the Meji restoration in the 1800's Japan sent out students and scholars to learn and absorb Western Culture. The Japanese had an interests in moving into the future.

[strategofr]

Perhaps you are wrong.


from the Washington Times
http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050227-123307-3036r


First Syria announces Lebanon pullout. Now Egypt announces democratic reform. Looks like the Bush doctrine has caused a Middle Eastern tidal wave.

from the Washington Times, best paper in the US.
http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050227-123307-3036r
Egypt eyes reform for fall election
By Tanalee Smith
ASSOCIATED PRESS
From the World section
CAIRO -- Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, in a surprise reversal, yesterday took a significant step toward democratic reform in the world's most populous Arab country by ordering that presidential challengers be allowed on the ballot this fall.
The opposition long had demanded an open election, but Egypt's ruling party repeatedly had rejected it.
The Egyptian president, who has held power since 1981 without facing an election opponent, only last month dismissed calls for reform as "futile."
Mr. Mubarak made the announcement in a nationally televised speech, surprising even some in his inner circle, one source close to the presidency said.
Touting "freedom and democracy," Mr. Mubarak told an audience at Menoufia University, north of Cairo, that he had instructed parliament and the consultative Shura Council to amend the constitution's Article 76 on presidential elections.
The changes would set a direct vote "giving the chance for political parties to run" and "providing guarantees that allow more than one candidate for the people to choose among them," Mr. Mubarak said.
His audience broke into applause. "Long live Mubarak, mentor of freedom and democracy," some shouted, while others recited verses of poetry praising the government.
Mr. Mubarak's sudden shift was the first sign from Egypt, a key U.S. ally, that it was ready to participate in the democratic evolution in the Middle East, in particular historic elections in Iraq and the Palestinian territories that followed balloting in Afghanistan.
Mr. Mubarak faced increasingly vocal opposition at home and growing friction with the United States over the lack of reform.

[monday]

"Perhaps you are wrong."

Perhaps, but I doubt it. The only reason the majority of middle eastern countries aren't Islamic theocracies similar to Iran is because there are very few truly democratic governments over there.

In Egypt, Morocco, even Turkey, Islamic parties would win if allowed to participate in the election. Saudi Arabia would have an Islamic terrorist government if it's citizens were allowed to choose their own government. Once an Islamic theocracy wins of course, that is the end of democracy, because democracy is not allowed under Sharia law.

Ironically, only Iran is ready for true democratic reform because people there have been living under the corrupt and reactionary rule of an Islamic theocracy for a generation. They are the only people in the middle east to realize how bad it is. They are also culturally more sophisticated than Arabs. A little any way.

Given a few more years, the tide of public opinion in Iran may cause the first and only true democratic reform in the middle east.

I am always amused that so many Americans think that all that is necessary to bring peace and freedom to the middle east is democratic reform. It is impossible to bring peace and freedom to people who would vote to live under tyrants.

[strategofr]

Good points. In regard to Turkey, the question seems to have a little "nuance" (not that I'm a John Kerry fan, the opposite, but the word still has meaning.)

The people of Turkey are not, as you imply free to elect an Islamic gov't, as that is illegal, I believe. However, they have elected a party led by someone who, until recently, was banned from political participation due to being considered a "militant Islamacist," or some similar designation.

In this case, the truth of the charge is not completely clear. He did read a poem with violent religious overtones, but what else he did I don't know, as news reports give that as the sole reason for his banning. Now he is in charge, and claims to have "reformed" in this regard.

Despite the ambiguity, I'll concede that the Turkish situation supports your point---the people seem to want to elect a religious gov't and came as close as they could under the current system.

I agree with you about Iran. Yes, it's ironic. Similar to former communist countries, by analogy.

Iran, due to the combination of nukes and missiles, is the most critical at the moment. I think perhaps we should "help along" the process you refer to (the movement toward democracy) with some covert supplying of weapons. What do you think?

A leaked report on covert US operations in Iran in the New Yorker (by an unreliable writer, Seymour Hirsch, unconfirmed and quite possibly fabricated) said we already have Seals, CIA guys or what-have-you in Iran, and that among other things, they are gathering info on Iranian nuclear installations. Maybe this could be combined with providing aid to the revolution, a tit for tat.

The Iranian democrats (supposedly) support a US invasion, and therefore should support efforts to thwart the development of a mullah nuclear deterrent.

[monday]

"I think perhaps we should "help along" the process you refer to (the movement toward democracy) with some covert supplying of weapons."

Check out this link. It has some ideas that actual Iranians think we should do to help.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Announcement/502251920.htm

[strategofr]

Nice link! One problem with this situation is that many analysts seem to be unsure of the true sentiment of the "Iranian people." What percentage oppose the mullahs?

If opposition is broad enough, I have thought that we should, before any potential invasion, simply parachute box-fulls of M-16s over the whole country. There is probably a better way to do it, based on some kind of infiltration by special forces.

Then maybe throw in some armored thrusts. Try to coordinate the rebels via our own special forces guys, in radio communication with US forces.

Realistically, we would have to raise the Iraqi army to the level of controlling most of Iraq first, to free up the forces.

It all hinges on a very strong positive response from the Iranian people. However, this does not seem assured. Obviously, we are gun-shy after Iraq. I realize the 2 countries are different, but caution still is there.

One hopeful sign is that I believe the CIA is being cleaned up, at least to an extent, under the new director. Theoretically, the same could happen at State. These are our eyes and ears, but they have functioned so badly, we have been deaf and blind. The military, not trusting State and the CIA, has relied on its own intelligence. This is inadequate (the military lacks the right capability for political assessment.)

Recently, I heard Joel Mowbray interviewed on the radio. His book, Dangerous Diplomacy, Regnery, 2003, is the definitive modern classic on the disaster at State, as far as I know.

He said that the person who had been brought in to reform the Visa Express program two years ago had been told by Condi Rice that her job would be extended "indefinitely". This was the program that let in 3 of the 9-11 terrorists from Saudi Arabia (p.3 Dangerous Diplomacy).

The person that set that program up and maintained it unchanged, basically after 9-11 was let go, but her predecessor had done nothing (apparently) in the last 2 years. Mowbray (on the radio) was quite upset to heat that Rice told her she could stay.

So hopefully this incident was an aberration and Rice will clean house at State. I like Rice's thinking, but fear if she is tough enough for this cleanup job at State.

[monday]

"So hopefully this incident was an aberration and Rice will clean house at State. I like Rice's thinking, but fear if she is tough enough for this cleanup job at State."

No one can clean up the state department. The reason is that employees cannot be fired for any reason. It is the same with all government jobs. The employees unions have made firing anyone, even for criminal behavior, next to impossible.

The other problem is that long ago intellectual elitists took over the state department and they are in charge of all hiring. Since they are all Ivy League socialists, they only hire other Ivy League socialists.

Political appointees like Rice come and go, but they have little or no effect on institutionalized bureaucracies like the State Department.

[snowsislander]

During the Meji restoration in the 1800's Japan sent out students and scholars to learn and absorb Western Culture. The Japanese had an interests in moving into the future.

"Boys, Be Ambitious!"

The Japanese imported scholars also, such as William Clark Smith in 1876.

[strategofr]

Your points are valid and telling. However, there is a high level of employees (even at State) that are appointees, I'm pretty sure. These need to be cleaned out wholesale, quickly.

The deeper problem you refer to is disastrous and must be addressed by new laws. Unfortunately, we first have to educate the American public about the problem to generate pressure for such. Which, in our infinitesimal way, we are doing here now.

Mowbray does address these problems, to an extent, in Dangerous Diplomacy.