America has lost its opportunity to push democracy

Facing scepticism at home, the United States has failed to properly articulate raise the issue of democracy in the Arab world, argues Michael Young

Since the invasion of Iraq, democratisation has followed a twisted path to nowhere during the past decade in the Middle East

Democratisation has followed a twisted path to nowhere during the past decade in the Middle East. That may not be surprising given the region’s travails, but ignoring the issue could have a dire impact on millions of lives in the decades to come.

Just over a decade ago, the Bush administration used democracy as a principal justification for its invasion of Iraq. There was doubtless opportunism involved, as president George W Bush saw the collapse of alternative explanations for the removal of Saddam Hussein. However, in Lebanon in 2005, the Americans again defended democratisation and the rule of law to support the withdrawal of the Syrian army from the country in the aftermath of Rafik Hariri’s assassination.

That a possible Arab democratic turn should be defined by western reactions may seem odd. Yet, democratic western states are vital for sustaining any project of Arab democratisation – from a political, economic and, even, a philosophical perspective.

With Mr Bush’s departure, a new administration came into office with little interest in democratisation. Barack Obama described himself as a political “realist” and in a much-publicised speech to the Arab and Muslim world in Cairo in 2009, the president paid only lip service to the idea of regional democracy.

Yet by 2011, Mr Obama was among those taken by surprise when some Arab societies revolted against their autocratic rulers. This appeared to show that Mr Bush had been on to something, even if few Arabs, and even fewer Obama administration officials, would have ever admitted such a thing.

Indeed, Mr Obama adopted a contradictory policy towards the Arab societies in ebullition. In Egypt, the United States pushed out its long-time ally Hosni Mubarak. In Libya, the American military helped remove Muammar Qaddafi from power. But in Syria, Mr Obama remained oblivious to calls for American support against the ferocity of Bashar Al Assad’s regime, dismissing the conflict there as “someone else’s civil war”.

In reality, Mr Obama simply had no interest in regional democracy, or in getting bogged down in the Arab world. In this way the president lost a golden opportunity to reshape the future of the Middle East in ways that could help stabilise it.

The failure of America and other parties to establish a post-war political order in Libya contributed to the dangerous vacuum that still prevails. As for Syria, American non-intervention also created a void that was bound to be filled by extremist groups feeding off the violence and sectarian animosities. In both cases the US would come to regret its inaction.

The carnage in Syria and Libya and its repercussions in other countries, particularly in Europe, has led to the abandonment of calls for democratisation. The perception in the West is that Arab societies are culturally incapable of being democratic, so readily do they seem to breed fanaticism and intolerance.

This tendentious view fails to consider the inherent pluralism in many Arab societies, and the fact that what many in the West see on their television screens is usually a small part of a larger picture. Even at the best of times cultural predetermination is erroneous, more an instrument of prejudice than anything else.

But in the wake of the deadly attacks in Paris, populist reactions have flourished, both in Europe and the United States. Not only are refugees from the Arab world and Africa regarded as potential risks, but this paranoia has meant ignoring the benefits of democratisation. A view prevails that because Arab societies generate extremism, it’s better for them to be ruled by dictators.

This conclusion is wholly at odds with what really happened in Paris. The attackers did not come from the Arab world, but from western societies. Even the Syrian passport near the body of a suicide bomber appears to have been forged. Despite this, the non sequitur prevails: that radicalism among western Muslims is the most persuasive sign that Arab countries, because they are mainly Muslim, cannot embrace democracy.

The difficulty is that western governments have not shown more sense. Facing scepticism at home, they have hesitated to raise the issue of democracy in the Arab world. Mr Bush’s belief that democracy could be imposed on the Middle East by force of arms was so maligned that no western leader today will echo it, for fear of being identified with American neoconservatives.

Yet Europe is facing many challenges, above all illegal immigration, that can only be addressed through an improvement in the social contracts of African and Middle Eastern states. Until now Europe has been timid in promoting democracy in its neighbourhood, preferring to improve economic conditions there as a disincentive to emigration.

However, there is more to democracy than a strong economy. Democratic orders tend to create more content societies, where political participation makes it difficult for predatory, corrupt political elites to dominate. That is what leads to healthier states. Alas, the West seems desperately uninterested.

Michael Young is opinion editor of The Daily Star in Beirut

On Twitter @BeirutCalling