Not so long ago, commentators were fond of noting
how Samuel Huntington’s “third wave
of democracy” had shattered upon the adamantine
breakwater of Arab despotism. Today, with Palestinians,
Iraqis and male Saudi Arabians all going to the
polls in the space of a month, with Egyptians and
Lebanese taking to the streets to demand a change
of government, the refrain is that the tide has
turned. As Carl Gershman, president of the National
Endowment for Democracy, told a forum at the right-wing
Hudson Institute in early February, the shouts of
“Kifaya!” (Enough!) resounding
in downtown Cairo bear a cheering resemblance to
the chants of “Pora!” (It Is
Time!) that still reverberate in Kiev squares. If
mighty Egypt succumbs to the wave that engulfed
Ukraine, Gershman mused, “Pan-Arabism can
be turned on its head and turned into a force for
spreading democracy.” The NED head was too
demure to claim that US intervention broke the dam
in the Arab world, but neo-conservative eminence
Richard Perle, with whom he shared the stage, was
not.
There certainly has been enough kleptocracy in
Egypt and enough Syrian meddling in Lebanese affairs—and
the Iraqi elections on January 30 were indeed a
watershed moment. Outside pressure on authoritarian
states—yes, even from the Bush administration—can
help to open spaces for a more participatory politics.
Just because Perle stakes that claim does not make
it false. But history counsels against blind acceptance
of Washington’s formula that elections plus
free markets equal stable democratic governance
and peace. It also reminds us that Washington’s
support for this formula ebbs and flows according
to calculations of its own interest.
Recall that mainstream analysts spoke in such
terms in the early to mid-1990s, as the third wave
of elections washed over central and eastern Europe,
leaking into Kuwait and the Palestinian Authority.
Subsequent events in Vladimir Putin’s Russia
are enough to temper the optimism, without considering
Yugoslavia or Israel-Palestine. In Iraq, elections
and dismantling of the state sector have not established
the new political order so much as allowed the real
wrangling over the distribution of power to begin.
Nor should one forget that the US winked at military
coups in the 1990s that overturned the voters’
will in Algeria and Pakistan. More recently, the
Bush administration called repeatedly for “regime
change” to depose Yasser Arafat, but waited
to back an election in Palestine until Arafat died.
Only the State Department press corps could have
failed to guffaw when their briefer said of what
he called the “Cedar Revolution” unfolding
in Lebanon: “And what does it mean to be free?
It means not to have foreign forces occupying your
country.”
Likewise, one should be skeptical of regional
autocracies—like those in Egypt and Saudi
Arabia—that opt for elections but only when
their interests so dictate. These governments desire
to keep Washington comfortably on their side, while
gradually legitimizing their rule in the eyes of
the world and deflecting popular dissent at home.
Egyptian President Husni Mubarak, for instance,
hopes to score this trifecta with supposedly pluralistic
presidential elections that bar candidates from
parties, like the Muslim Brotherhood, that might
have enough support to beat him. The US facilitates
such regime-led faux democratization with rhetoric
like that in the 2005 State of the Union address:
“The great and proud nation of Egypt, which
showed the way toward peace in the Middle East,
can now show the way toward democracy in the Middle
East.” Sure enough, the editor of the government-owned
Rose al-Youssef magazine described Mubarak’s
announcement of the “multi-party” presidential
contest as “a democratic electric shock”
to the presumably inert body politic.
Contemporary euphoria about Middle Eastern elections
fails to draw a distinction between a serious redistribution
of power, through truly unfettered competition and
institutional reform, and formal elections for elections’
sake. It also can posit elections as an end in themselves—or,
worse, a blessing bestowed upon benighted Arabia
by American arms. This last conceit is why it is
especially important to remember that in Egypt and
Saudi Arabia, as in Palestine, Iraq and, soon, Lebanon,
elections are a response to genuine popular demand.