For the United States, trying to spread democracy is like love for a teenager — it has gotten us into no end of trouble. By dumping Mubarak, we appalled the Saudis, who don’t have quite the touching regard for democracy that we do. The Jordanians felt the same. They, too, think that democracy is dandy — for France, for Britain, for a whole lot of nations, but not, please, for the one called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Israel, too, was not cheered. For it, democracy in the Arab world is downright scary.
The United States made war in Iraq for a number of reasons — nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, a nonexistent link to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and also to transform the place into a democracy that would be — no kidding — a model for the entire Middle East. In his book “Foreign Policy Begins at Home,” Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, argues against this mindless embrace of democracy, arguing instead for caution. “Democracy is no panacea, and democracies in the Middle East are certain to be anything but mature democracies for decades to come, if ever.” That “if ever” is a bit of uncharacteristic optimism. . . .
The history of inter-war Europe should have cautioned. Following World War I, democracies popped up in Central and Eastern Europe like mushrooms after the rain. Soon, most veered right, embracing intolerance, extreme nationalism and, of course, anti-Semitism. The autocratic regimes they replaced often protected minority rights. The people felt otherwise, and politicians sooner or later give the people want they want.
In the same way, Egypt followed Mubarak with an Islamic regime that persecuted the country’s minorities. Coptic Christians, once a highly prosperous and productive community, had been protected by Mubarak. That was hardly the case under Morsi. They suffered. . . .
But when it comes to a kind of sentimental desire for democracy, I approve the realist’s vigilant cynicism. They appreciate that what works for us may not work for others, and finally, that our national interest, and that of our allies, may entail a certain healthy hypocrisy about democracy: Everyone should have it — but not quite yet.
But is this just postmodern relativism? Does democracy, perhaps, depend on other universal values, such as a belief in human rights, before it can work? Then again, democracies are rare in human history, which would not seem to be the case if this approach to government is grounded in natural law. Surely democracies require a certain cultural and even religious infrastructure. But isn’t it legitimate for America to promote its own ideology, though perhaps more wisely than a teenager in love?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In