DSAI : Cultivating the seeds of democracy

Malaysia Today
27 March 2006


Cultivating the seeds of democracy

By Anwar Ibrahim
Los Angeles Times

ANWAR IBRAHIM is a former finance minister and deputy prime minister
of Malaysia. He is a visiting professor at Georgetown University's
School of Foreign Service in Washington.

SINCE 9/11, the United States has pursued what the White House calls
a "forward strategy of freedom" predicated on the belief that a
dearth of democracy in Muslim countries has led to the spread of a
deadly strain of Islamic extremism. Emboldened by a hard-won
ideological victory over the regimes in Eastern Europe during the
Cold War, the U.S. once again has sought to foment democracy abroad
to ensure security at home.

However, as the first returns come in on this democratization effort
in the Muslim world, there is growing anxiety in the U.S. about the
resulting character of these nascent, freely elected governments.
Some have begun to even question whether these countries have the
innate ability to sustain democracy.

Although it cannot be denied that U.S. initiatives for reform have
contributed significantly to developments in the Middle East, fear is
growing that radicals may hijack democracy. Recent Islamist electoral
successes in Iran, Egypt and the Palestinian territories have given
rise to questions about the ability of liberal forces to prevail
against fundamentalism.

For the United States, the fear is real, though perhaps tinged with a
bit of Islamophobia: How terrible an irony it would be if this grand
effort to spread liberty abroad resulted in anti-U.S. Islamic states
imposing Sharia, or Islamic law, on their people.

The example of Hamas' ascension in Gaza and the West Bank presents
obvious difficulties. But it would be fallacious to assume that it
was democracy that voted in Islamic extremism. More correctly, it was
the years of corruption and abuse of power of the Fatah-led
administration that voted Hamas into power. If the exercise of
democracy is about venting the people's anger and dissatisfaction
with the powers that be, then the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

Be that as it may, there are some who say that "stability" not
liberty is what the U.S. should be promoting throughout the Islamic
world. Their view is that championing electoral democracy does not
immediately serve U.S. interests abroad, particularly in the war on
terrorism, and that the hearts and minds of terrorists and suicide
bombers are not turned by the virtues of democracy. They say the war
against terrorism must be waged with an iron hand, not kid gloves
woven from the fabric of constitutional liberties.

These views on democracy and stability in the Muslim world are not
only wrong but carry grave consequences.

In a way, Washington's strategy may be viewed as expiation for past
sins, when the U.S. was a stumbling block to democracy in the Middle
East. Iran was a democracy in 1953 when the CIA engineered the coup
that transformed it into an absolute monarchy. The U.S. also has
supported other tyrants in the region, including, of course, Saddam
Hussein. All of this in the name of stability and security in the
decades-long confrontation with the communist bloc.

Is Washington really caught between the Scylla of supporting
dictators and the Charybdis of promoting democracies that could bring
Islamist radicals to power?

THE BEST ANSWERS to the question of whether America should reassess
its strategy lie in Indonesia and Turkey, refreshing examples of
Muslim democratic self-assertion.

Seven years ago, Indonesia plunged headlong into democracy after more
than 30 years of autocratic dictatorship. As the largest Muslim
nation in the world, it stands out as perhaps the most significant
political phenomenon in the recent history of democracy. Indonesians
have gone to the polls twice since, and they overwhelmingly rejected
the Islamist radicals, who then tried to push their agenda through
other avenues. Again, this was met with a resounding "no" by the
Indonesian people, including major Muslim organizations.

The press in Indonesia is free, and the elections are fair.
Fundamental liberties are enshrined in the constitution and fully
recognized and respected by the powers that be. For example, unlike
in neighboring Malaysia, Indonesians may gather to protest government
decisions and policies without fear of reprisals. Arbitrary arrests
and political detentions are unheard of.

As fledgling democracies, Indonesia and Turkey still have a long way
to go. In Indonesia, it is in fulfilling the socioeconomic objectives
of democracy that can only happen over time. In Turkey, the
containment of an unrestricted military establishment has aided in
that country's European Union ascension. Nevertheless, they now stand
as beacons, both for Muslim nations and for those who seek to help them.

To be successful in its efforts to spread freedom, the U.S. must
remember that constitutional democracy cannot take root in a society,
whether secular or Islamic, without the firm commitment of the
politically empowered to protect the fundamental rights to liberty,
equality and freedom of all.

The true cultivation of democracy requires more than simply the
introduction of elections. It also requires the establishment of
democratic processes and a leveling of the political playing field.
It needs the guarantee of a separation of powers and the liberation
of the judicial system from the stranglehold of autocrats and
tyrants. Most of all, it requires the protection of fundamental
liberties and a free press.

It is in these prerequisites of democracy that the U.S. and the
Muslim world need to invest, with far more significant effort, for
the causes of liberty to truly prevail.