Middle Eastern Democracy

Martin Kramer dissents from President Bush's goal of supporting the democratization of the Muslim Middle East on the grounds that such democracies would oppose U.S. interests and human rights. However, his reference to Iran seems a weak case: Any problems with human rights in Iran stem from its lack of full democracy, and its anti-Americanism came largely because of U.S. support for the Shah. Kramer also links to an address he gave in 2002 in which he mentions Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority as examples of pluralist societies in which Islamist radicals have gained influence. However, I don't think you can really discuss those cases without reference again to the corruption of Arafat's regime, Syrian influence in Lebanon, and the Israeli occupations in south Lebanon and the West Bank.

The real problem I have with such thinking, however, is that over the long term support for these dictators is likely to be a losing strategy. The crux of Kramer's argument is this: "I do not claim here that the Arab world is imprisoned by Islam, as some might argue. I do claim that it is burdened by its history—history transmuted into memory, and preserved as a mindset. And I would summarize the mindset in a simple axiom: rule or die...In the Arab world, civil society is very thin on the ground. And the reason is this: civil society is regarded everywhere as a form of political opposition. The state therefore seeks to destroy or co-opt it. And the people? They also suspect the institutions of civil society, which cannot protect them from the state, and whose sponsors are often distrusted."

One issue here is the extent to which the conditions he cites are conditions created by dictatorship itself. The only way to build a habit of ideological tolerance is to force regimes to tolerate more diverse perspectives. In the short term, this may give rise to anti-American revolutionary fervor in some areas; however, I disagree that this would be universal, and in the long term is the only way to ensure the future stability and prosperity of the region. Iran may be more repressive culturally than under the Shah, but there is far more open political discourse across the nation as a whole rather than just key urban areas, and this makes a better platform from which to approach true democracy than the Shah's repression. Adopting Kramer's strategy would seem to keep the Muslim Middle East in dictatorships for all eternity.

In addition, I think some of these civil society institutions do exist in terms of Egyptian trade associations, for example. In addition, the description of the Arab press is something of a MEMRI caricature which does not capture the full range of Arab debate in contains. (See Abu Aardvark for more on MEMRI.) I haven't talked to anyone in the field who thinks democracy is right around the corner, but the building blocks are starting to appear. The U.S. needs to be on the right side of history and support them whenever possible.