Advocacy for democratisation in the Middle East has been a major part of the United States' foreign policy for the last several years. While few would argue that a country should not be able to have a government that is responsive to the people it represents, the United States should examine not only its motives for endorsing democracy throughout the region, but also what it is actually trying to export.
The ideals and principles that are commonly associated with democracies -- fundamental liberties, an active and involved civil society, representative government, and governments that are accountable to the people, to name a few -- are not principles that can only be expressed through one particular form of government and set of institutions.
However, the United States, in pushing democratisation, often seems to take the contrary view - that democracy is the institutions of government, not its principles. In so doing it runs the risk of pushing institutions and structures onto countries that are not suited to local conditions and culture, and are nothing more than skewed reflections of Western societies with democratic governments.
Democracy is a set of complementary concepts, and the particular form of government and set of institutions that a country chooses to embody them must inevitably be unique to that country's culture. A people's shared history, cultural identity and values are all important factors that shape its conception of what it expect its government to provide. A "one size fits all" democracy is not possible -- and to view abstract concepts as a type of software that can simply be installed in any country is a dangerous mistake. The mistake is compounded a thousand times if democracy is artificially imposed by force, as the United States appears to be doing in Iraq.
Democratic government is a process, and to artificially impose it is to forget that a democracy is a government of the people, and is the result of interaction and communication among citizens, and between the citizenry and the government. A democratic government is, by definition, an evolution of the ideas of its citizens, and when the United States attempts to force its form of democracy onto the countries of the Middle East, it forgets that not only must the actions of a functioning democracy evolve from the concerns of its citizens, but that the initial implementation of democratic principles must evolve out of the citizens' expectations, values and experiences. In its policy towards the Middle East, the United States has forgotten that democracy is not a Western structure, but a series of processes with a form that evolves from the unique needs and will of its citizens.
In short, how and by whom democracy is established is as important as the structures of governance established. Democracy must develop organically. The United States cannot disregard Middle Eastern countries' history and culture in its plans for a democratic Middle East. Yet, the contrary is what is occurring. Indeed, historians and students of America have long recognised the danger of the idealistic strain in U.S. foreign policy, which stems even from the days of the Founding Fathers, who thought of the United States as the "shining city on the hill." History, including victories in both World War II and the Cold War only cemented the United States' conception of itself as the "leader of the free world" and a paragon of democratic virtue.
This is unfortunate, because a realistic and just foreign policy with regard to democratisation can only stem from the realisation that its own democracy is based on certain, perhaps not so universal principles, and the culturally unique structures designed to embody those principles. Some argue the United States' stable and long tradition of democracy and representative government are proof enough of the effectiveness of its form of government; nevertheless its laws and governmental structures developed as a result of its own history and culture.
In the end, it is paradoxical to assume that democracy could actually function if it is the result of shallow mimicry, or through imposition by force. The contradictory nature of this effort, however, seems lost on U.S. policy makers.
However, it may not be lost on many in the Middle East, and what is certainly not lost on the Muslim world is that, even on its own terms, U.S.-style democracy does not always seem so worthy of emulation. While the United States urges "fair" elections in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, the fact that only about 50% of the American population votes is often taken as evidence that democracy is not healthy in the United States. And if Americans have already forgotten that the popular vote did not determine the outcome of the 2000 election, many elsewhere in the world have not.
In short, the United States should remember that what works for one country may not work for another. The United States needs to be sure that countries want democracy before providing aid, and even then it should make every effort to make sure its own culture is not forced on the country's institutions. Only then is there any hope that real and sustainable democracies will be established.
The dangerous assumption that the United States seems to make all too often -- that "those people need us" -- only heightens tensions, and will slow the process of democratisation in the Middle East by permitting the establishment of structures and the imposition of principles that do not respond to the cultural and historical prerogatives of the people.
--
(Nora Al Subai is a student at the University of Kuwait, and Bryan Gerbracht attends the University of Iowa. They wrote this article as part of the Soliya Connect program, an online Western-Islamic dialogue program.)
--
(Distributed by the Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity)
