- The Washington Times - Wednesday, February 8, 2006

President Bush is assailed from the left as a rights-violating, murderous warmonger. (Cindy Sheehan: “George Bush still continues his evil rhetoric that he is waging a war on terrorism, and he is really waging a war of terrorism against the world.”) From the right, Mr. Bush is accused of pathetic naivete for promoting democracy. Why would anyone want that job?

Is it naive to promote democracy in the Third World? Certainly it can be — if you treat elections as ends in themselves or imagine democratization is either easy or inevitable. On the other hand, those who scoff that people living under tyranny lack the habits and discipline to grasp liberty when it is offered may be needlessly pessimistic.

Spain had lived under repressions of various kinds and degrees for centuries when King Juan Carlos shepherded that nation to democracy in the 1970s. So had El Salvador when its people braved bullets and terror from the communists in the 1980s to vote in a centrist democratic government.

Japan, after terrorizing the East under a militarist regime in the 1930s and ‘40s, was able to embrace the democratic model under American tutelage. And among the nations that have inherited the rich Western tradition of human rights and the dignity of the individual, we certainly must include Germany. Yet who would cite Germany as proof the Western tradition alone equips men to embrace liberty and reject despotism?

Elections alone do not create democratic societies. Democracies must also, as Mr. Bush noted in his State of the Union speech, respect the rights of minorities, uphold private property, preserve the independence of the judiciary and respect a free press. But elections are a tangible first step that can give a formerly subjugated people the confidence and patience to build a truly free society.

The indispensable election is not the first, but the second; because the second establishes the people as sovereign.

Voters in the Palestinian territories opted for an Islamic extremist movement. It was a free and fair election. Does this invalidate the push for democracy in the Arab world?

No. This result was in part the legacy of 30 years of tyranny and kleptocracy by Yasser Arafat. The Palestinians were aching to reject the corrupt reign of Fatah. The only vehicle for expressing their displeasure was Hamas. Now the key question is: Will there be a second election? Or a third? If so, Hamas may well be held accountable. If not, it is hard to see how the election we just witnessed makes things any worse.

If nothing else, the election outcome offers some clarity to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Fatah was committed to violence and terror against Israel but claimed not to be. Hamas is at least direct about it. Even the most self-deluded Israeli will have trouble imagining he sees a “partner for peace” in Hamas (though Europe in a few months no doubt will sanitize Hamas and demand Israel negotiate with it).

Voters in Iran have long since tired of their clerical masters (to put it mildly). Yet their elections have not been free. The contest that brought Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the presidency was rigged, with the mullahs disqualifying hundreds of candidates (including all women) who would have sought office.

The mullahs cannot permit free elections because their Islamic Republic would be soundly rejected.

The communist junta that controlled Nicaragua in 1979-1988 didn’t want free elections either. Communists never do. But severe international pressure, specifically from their Central American neighbors, and military pressure from the Contras, forced them to accede. It was the first and last free election in a communist country. The Sandinistas lost big.

For decades, the American government took a benevolent view of the authoritarian (and in some cases totalitarian) governments of the Middle East. They did so in the name of stability. The result was an incubator of terrorism.

Democracy will not easily take root in that rocky soil, but the Iraqis and Afghans who proudly display their ink-stained fingers are a rebuke to those who sniff that it’s a fool’s errand.

Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide