Newsletter No. 174
January 28, 2006

 

THE DEMOCRACY PROBLEM -- HAMAS, AMERICA, AND JAPAN
By Michael Penn

The results of the Palestinian Legislative Council are now in: It is a sweeping victory for Hamas in what almost everyone concedes were free and fair elections. Fatah, the secular Arab nationalist movement that has dominated Palestinian politics since the 1960s, has been brushed aside by the voters in a decisive manner. Hamas candidates won 76 seats, and Fatah only 43 seats, out of a total of 132.

So this is a great victory for President Bush’s vaunted policy of democratization, right? The people have spoken. There has been a transfer of power in an Arab land, where authority has changed hands at the ballot box rather than at the point of a gun.

But they aren’t celebrating in Washington, are they? They are only whining that the “wrong” people have won. President Bush himself opined that, “I don’t see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform. And I know you can’t be a partner in peace if your party has got an armed wing.”

Is that so, Mr. President? It seems to me that President Bush himself has not only advocated, but carried out the destruction of a country (Iraq). It also seems to me that both the United States and Israel themselves have an “armed wing.”

However, if the American President is now willing to unilaterally disarm and to pursue a policy of strict pacificism in his foreign policies, and if Israel stops building illegal settlements and ends its attacks on Palestinian leaders and national infrastructure, then I’m sure that Hamas can be persuaded to reciprocate. In the meantime, the calls for Hamas to “give up violence” are unlikely to have much effect. No side has a monopoly on “violence” in this conflict, and that includes violence directed at innocent civilians.

When the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003, the public rationale was that Saddam Husain and his Vast Arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction presented such a danger to the American people that there was no choice but to “take him out” before the evil dictator could bring his wicked schemes to fruition. Foolishly, most Americans accepted that line, and the war was launched.

When the WMDs failed to appear as expected, and the main rationale for the war fell plop on its face, then Plan B was rolled out. Plan B was the rationalization that the “Bush Doctrine” was actually all about spreading democracy in the Arab world. Dictatorship, poverty, and oppression had lent support for terrorism in the region, and the solution to these problems lay in democracy, it was said.

In this way, even though there were no WMDs in Iraq, President Bush and his cohort could still declare victory in Iraq -- if only a democratic government could be established there. I seem to remember some much-heralded speeches by Secretary Rice about the glories of democratization in the Arab world.

Problem is, Plan B has a fatal flaw of its own: Democratic governments in the Arab world are also going to be anti-American governments -- at least at the outset. There is a fundamental contradiction at work: On the one hand, the US government says it wants “democracy.” On the other hand, they want to control all the outcomes. In the Arab world at least, that’s never going to work.

Real and supposed supporters of Plan B have a fundamental choice to make:

DEMOCRATIZATION -- Let the Arab peoples make their own choices, and lose control of the region.

CONTROL -- Keep control, keep backing pro-American dictatorships, and watch democracy die.

My personal choice would be for real democratization -- but that’s what makes me different from most of my countrymen. In fact, when push comes to shove, most Americans will, in practice, demand control. They will want to preserve their power more than their principles. For the denizens of Washington, this will be doubly true.

However, since most Americans still see themselves as the “good guys,” it won’t be possible for them to face these dark realities squarely. They will need psychological comforts to help them escape the true ramifications of their choices. It will thus be necessary to construct reassuring myths that leave their self-images intact.

The Coming Myth will sound something like this: “After 9/11 the American people selflessly wanted to eliminate the sources of desperation and discontent in the Arab world, and so pursued a policy of democratization that could give those people their freedom. However, in spite of our best intentions, the Arabs betrayed our benevolent plans through their addiction to violence and extremism. Thus, the Arabs lost their historic opportunity to have a better, brighter future for themselves and their families. The problems that still infect the region are not America’s responsibility, but are rather due almost entirely to the failures and conceit of the Arabs themselves.”

Read this newsletter again a few short years from now, and tell me if it is not so!

As for Tokyo, the initial response to the victory of Hamas has been more cautious than that of Washington. Prime Minister Koizumi sagely declared: “We cannot know how things will go until we see for a while.” Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe added: “We must make efforts so that Hamas will adopt a proactive attitude toward the peace process… It is important that Japan and the international community work with both Palestine and Israel so that the peace process based on the Road Map will not be delayed.” Foreign Minister Taro Aso issued a short statement saying that Japan “strongly expects that the Palestinian Authority, following the successful implementation of the elections, will make efforts for peace in accordance with the Road Map, such as to control the extremists.”

Tokyo had sent monitors to the Palestinian elections and had provided about US$720,000 to help carry them out.

All four major Japanese dailies ran articles on the Hamas victory today. The Asahi looked forward to a Hamas that put political negotiations before armed conflict. The Yomiuri did the same in stronger terms, and seemed to put the onus squarely on the Palestinian side. It is difficult to determine what the Mainichi editorial was trying to say, except that they desired the peace process to continue. The Nikkei simply emphasized how so much has changed recently on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides.

Many commentators in Japan -- including Prime Minister Koizumi -- have expressed surprise at the victory of Hamas. I’m not sure why. It seems to me that the collapse of Fatah and the rise of Hamas is an event that has been coming for many years. I more or less reached the conclusion that Hamas would ultimately overtake the PLO as much as a decade ago. I don’t think that my insight in that regard is unique. Every time Israel blew up a PLO police station, put Arafat under siege, harassed a Palestinian at a checkpoint, or failed to honor a commitment in the peace process, they undermined and delegitimized Fatah and the PLO. The seeds of the Hamas victory were sown long ago, and watered by a steady flow of Palestinian humiliations.

Finally, it will be recalled that President Bush has several times pointed to Japan as the model for what he hopes will emerge in Iraq and, presumably, in other Arab countries as well. Watching his reactions to the victory of Hamas in free elections makes one quite cynical about what he really means by that analogy, and what he means by “democratization.”

What he really desires are countries with free elections that just happen to do everything that Washington wants -- but there are very few countries in the world with a character like that of demure Japan.

Like Americans, Arabs and other Muslims have a strong sense of justice, and they demand control over their own lives. Japanese are unusual in their patient willingness to be controlled by others and in their fear of standing alone.

A Japanese “democracy” may be willing to take orders from Washington, but as for an Arab democracy? Don’t make me laugh!

In that respect, Americans and Arabs are very much alike.