End of the road for Democracy

Iraq is again hogging the headlines. The daily toll of executions by one or another religious group and suicide bombings of Iraqi nationals and against coalition forces dominate the front pages. For me though, the interesting stuff is hidden away inside the printed bundle. There is much talk of deadlines for withdrawal which has replaced plans even as recent as last week to introduce some form of democracy in the region. The idea that with sufficient outside support, civil society organizations could democratise authoritarian regimes "from below" was an article of faith among many policy makers and democracy promoters. Accordingly, programs to strengthen such groups were key elements of the United States' plans for the Middle East. However, the United States and other donor countries possibly overestimated civil society's democratising role in the region. The United States brought its own problems to its relationship with civil society in the Middle East. These included the narrow range of organizations with which it typically engages, popular antipathy to Washington's policies in the region, and the broader challenge of designing effective civil society assistance programs.
There is a review in progress ordered by the President following the power changes in US government. A commission of experts appointed by President George W Bush is forecast to advise him to abandon his dream of cementing a new democratic system in Iraq and instead tackle the security crisis so that the withdrawal of American troops can begin.
The advice from the Iraq Study Group, a high-level bipartisan panel headed by James Baker, the former Republican secretary of state, will sideline the so-called Bush doctrine of spreading democracy in the Middle East. Mr Bush will meet the panel tomorrow and Tony Blair is expected to offer his views (Woof woof is forecast) via a video-conference call on Tuesday.
I find the talk of democracy in the context of the Middle East interesting. I am a long way from being an expert but did spend much time there in more peaceful times when dialogue with the locals was possible. I was honoured to have been friendly with Sheikh Isa back in the mid-60s when he was the Ruler in Bahrain and had the opportunity to see how he ran his country. What they had was in many ways better than my ideas and experience of democracy as it ran in Britain. Isa was the head of the ruling tribe, the al Khalifas. His father before him. His son since the death of Isa. He acted in a way that one might describe as fatherly. He decided what was to be done. There was a system for being in touch with his subjects. This, a majlis, is best described as an open house where all might come and petition the Ruler. He generally gave his ruling there and then or deferred the matter whilst he studied all the ins and outs – of which there may be many in Muslim daily life. There are other forms of majlis but they still result in te position where the ‘Ruler’ is in charge and can negate any legislative power they might be given by him.
Isa also decided what needed to be done to improve the lot of his people. Many still lived in what was regarded as very basic accommodations – a buristi. Whilst extremely basic, many people were happy living in these. Isa planned and had built new towns which followed Western design and living standards. He gave these to the buristi dwellers. Those who were tardy in relocating found themselves moved and the old accommodation torched. Is that despotic or paternal? It was certainly for the good and benefit of his people. Medical care was totally free and available to all. If overseas treatment was required, it was provided. Measures were taken to introduce modern sanitation. Childbirth improvements. All freely and without any of the to and fro that we see in our democracy.
So, to me, what they had was better than democracy. Saddam Hussein had perverted the Ruler idea but once he had gone, the citizens hoped they might find it again. I’m glad to see that my reservations about democracy are reflected in the opinions of those who are experts.
My other reservation about the drive to put democracy into Iraq is that I am unsure just what part this played in the decision to go to war. I seem to recall that we were told that Iraq was part of bin Laden’s circle and was thus targeted as a venue for the plans to fight terrorism off American soil. Then came weapons of mass destruction. This was intended to amplify the danger of a bin Laden associate running free. So we came to regime change. As evidence to back the Al Queda association dropped away we were reminded that WMD had been used to kill Saddam Hussein opponents. My suspicion is that democracy was put up as just another excuse. Certainly, well intentioned but optimism over-ruled those who knew just what weak chance that had.
So, now we see possibly the most honest stage of all. How can the coalition get out with the least damage? That is really the $64,000 question.