The Goal of Democracy

It's interesting. One of the main neocon arguments for the war in Iraq was that bringing democracy to Iraq would trigger a domino effect, releasing a "wave of democracy" across the Middle East. When we saw elections in Saudi Arabia, the popular movement in Lebanon, etc., these were held as examples of this process in action. Now, democracy in the Palestinian Authority has resulted in Hamas winning a majority in the PA government. The US response? Cutting off aid and a refusal to deal with the government the people of the PA have chosen.

I thought this is what we wanted. Didn't the president himself say, "For the Palestinian people, the only path to independence and dignity and progress is the path of democracy." But when they take a step on that path, we smack them down?

The lesson here is that democracy does not necessarily result in a government that is automatically aligned with our interests. This is a key, unstated part of the neocon theory, that a democratic Iraq would automatically be a key ally in the region. Regarding Iraq, the president said last year, "Iraq will be a free nation and a strong ally in the Middle East -- and this will add to the security of the American people." But the PA shows the fallacy of that argument. They might be free, but freedom and a democratically elected government does not mean they will be an ally.

Iran is another example. Iran is a stable, functioning democracy, and is hardly an ally.

So, while democracy may be an admirable goal in Iraq, the expectation that this will bring us a strong ally may be mistaken.