Philadelphia Inquirer - Democracy is more than just voting

Sun, Jul. 23, 2006

It seems a distant memory now, but only a year ago, the Arab Middle East appeared poised for a democratic transformation. Even some of Washington's harshest critics grudgingly conceded that an "Arab Spring," inspired by American support and intervention, had began to flower. Change was indeed coming to the least democratic region in the world.

Lebanon had seen a "Cedar Revolution," with massive popular protests forcing Syria to loosen its grip and pull its troops out of the country in time for new elections. Egypt's seemingly eternal president, Hosni Mubarak, announced he would allow other candidates to compete against him in the next election. Kuwait finally agreed to let women vote and run for office. And Saudi Arabia opened the polls for municipal councils. The world took notice when Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt described what he called "the start of a new Arab world."

"The Syrian people, the Egyptian people," Jumblatt noted, "all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

If so, someone quickly rebuilt much of it. Today, such optimism is not much more than a memory. Little more than a year after the Arab Spring, the blossoms are wilting in the summer heat. Israel and Hezbollah trade bombs, missiles and threats of all-out war, while the impotent government of Lebanon looks on, the country's army a sad irrelevance.

Iraq has a parliament but also chaos. In the Palestinian Territories, elections brought to power Hamas, a radical Islamic organization considered a terrorist organization by most Western nations. In Iraq, secular parties barely registered in elections against much better-organized religious parties. There, too, the sword looks mightier than the poll.

In Egypt, a questionable election turned members of the Islamic Brotherhood into the second-largest bloc in parliament. The government has indefinitely postponed the next elections, and repression is again the order of the day. For democracy advocates in Cairo, euphoria has given way to something bordering on despair.

"The country is falling apart in front of our eyes and we can't do anything about it. It's like watching a train wreck." That's the mood according to one progressive Egyptian, known by his blog name, SandMonkey.

Not that pushing for democratic change in the Mideast was itself a mistake. After all, the Mideast's entrenched autocracies produced staggering economic, educational and political stagnation in the Arab world. They turned the region into a lab for extremist ideology spreading around the globe like a toxic oil spill. When government does nothing for its people and forbids participation in any organization except the mosque, fundamentalism by definition becomes the only alternative.

America's mistake lay in stressing elections while ignoring other indispensable elements of democracy. That let sly regimes trick the United States (again) into fearing that democracy would inevitably bring extremists to power.

Instead, America - and the world - should push for the basic requirements of democracy, the freedoms without which elections don't really mean very much: political parties, a free press, freedom of assembly, an independent judiciary, and other elements of civil society and human rights.

Beyond that, no democracy can survive with assorted militias using force to pursue objectives not shared by the elected government. As Lebanon painfully demonstrates, a government needs more than democratic elections to establish its credibility and authority. An essential requirement for a functioning sovereign state, as philosophers and political scientists have long noted, is that the government must have a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.

A government that claims to rule, while armed militias it cannot control run amok, risks becoming a bystander in the kind of chaos and instability we now see in Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories and Iraq. When militias take their orders from another government and foreign forces enter the scene, the will of voters becomes collateral damage - no matter how heartfelt the excitement on election day.

Elections alone are not enough. When I asked Alhamedi Alanezi, a Saudi, if he ever participated in political activities, he told me he would do it "only if I wanted a little time to myself, away from the family, in a prison cell somewhere." Alanezi recently moved to London, where he writes the blog The Religious Policeman.

Iraq was unique, since the alternative to elections was keeping an American-appointed government in power. Elections were the only way to begin building a new system. But, just as in the rest of the region, years of political repression meant that only religious organizations have had the chance to promote their views. Hardly surprising, then, that they did so well in the polls.

Arab regimes have long argued that allowing people to vote would bring radicals to power. To prove this, countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia made sure any democratic test brought gains only to extremists. The most egregious example was Mubarak's imprisonment of his progressive opponent Ayman Nour. Nour, a liberal who challenged Mubarak for the presidency last year, today languishes in jail on trumped-up charges.

Democracy activists say they value and need America's help. Most - not all - think the Iraqi war was a terrible way to force democratic change. America, they say, should be firm and supportive, but it is the countries themselves that must take the lead.

Despite the reverses, it's not all brushfires and wilted flowers along the path to democracy. In some places, the United States has applied pressure in just the right spots.

I reached Lulwa al-Mulla, a democratic activist in Kuwait, during an unforgettable election day in the emirate. For the first time in history, women could run for office and cast their vote. Exhilarated and proud as she watched women streaming to the polls, she told me, "We fought for our democracy." Americans, she said, proved extremely helpful - not only by freeing Kuwait from Iraqi invaders in 1990, but also by pushing for women's rights and helping with democratic training and education.

The region remains in desperate and urgent need of change. Accepting entrenched dictatorships will not help. Democracy remains the only solution. The last year proves only that achieving it will require much more than simply calling voters to the polls.

 

San Francisco Chronicle - Arab Blogs Fight for Reform

Publ Sunday. July 9, 2006

(see the article in the SFChronicle's Site)

For a brief moment this week, two days after Palestinians kidnapped 19-year-old Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit, and just a few hours before Israel launched a major incursion for his release, an item of seemingly promising news flashed across computer screens throughout the world. The radical Islamic group Hamas, the headlines proclaimed, had at last decided to grant ''implicit'' recognition of Israel's right to exist. Hamas, which runs the Palestinian Authority government, had always proclaimed its goal of destroying Israel. Had the extremist group suddenly changed? The headlines wishfully indicated that is exactly what had happened. That interpretation, however, was more than premature: It was patently incorrect.

With developments in the Middle East as distressing as ever, a world hungry for good news latched on to the announcement that Hamas and Fatah, the bitter rivals of Palestinian politics, had agreed to the so-called Prisoners Document, marking a possible new beginning for peace. Commentators called it a major breakthrough, and many, including Palestinian leaders, suggested that international sanctions against the Hamas-led PA could soon end. Perhaps the sides would now tiptoe to the peace table.

Even now, with Israeli tanks in Gaza, one still hears both Western and Arab commentators perpetuating the growing myth that Hamas has recognized Israel.

The document, written by Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, offers a stunning display of vagueness on what some perceive as concessions, combined with absolute specificity on points that Israel has consistently rejected over years of negotiations. Nowhere does it announce recognition of Israel's right to exist. The closest it comes is saying the Palestinians seek to achieve freedom, ''including the right to establish their independent state with al-Quds al-Shareef (Jerusalem) as its capital on all territories occupied in 1967.'' That suggests the possibility of two states. But it is not a real departure for Hamas.

Hamas -- whose charter acknowledges Israel by saying, ''Israel will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it'' -- had already offered a long-term truce if Israel would withdraw to 1967 lines. Its wishes to destroy Israel after the truce were never hidden.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah had threatened to call a referendum on the document, unless Hamas agreed to it, while Fatah and Hamas gunmen were shooting at each other and Palestinians teetered on the verge of civil war.

This week, the impending Israeli incursion, and the real threat that Hamas would lose power, persuaded its leaders to sign. But Hamas spokesmen promptly and unequivocally declared that they were absolutely not conceding Israel's right to exist.

The document steps back from negotiating positions that brought Israelis and Palestinians closer in pre-Hamas days. It demands Israel's return to pre-1967 lines, whose strategic vulnerability both sides knew demanded redrawing. And Israel, of course, would never completely withdraw from Jerusalem. Both sides also know that Israel will not fully agree to the so-called right of return to Israel proper by all Palestinian refugees, which the document demands. That would mark the end of Israel as a Jewish state, amounting to demographic suicide. Israelis see this as another ploy to annihilate it. Compromise positions on the issue had emerged at Camp David.

With Hamas -- considered a terrorist group by the European Union, the United States and Israel, among others -- in control of the legislature, foreign donors stopped the gushing flow of cash to the PA. They demanded three conditions before aid would resume. Hamas would have to recognize Israel's right to exist; accept previously signed agreements with Israel and renounce violence. The agreement does little to address these fundamental issues.

Far from renouncing violence, it enshrines the Palestinians' right to continue resistance ''in various means,'' presumably including suicide bombings against civilians. Just days ago, a top European Union official visiting the region described the document as a ''step forward.'' But, she added, it is not enough to satisfy the conditions for renewed aid.

So, as much as we would all like to see a glimmer of hope for peace, this document is not the place to find it. Even if Shalit is released and Israeli tanks roll out of Gaza; even in the unlikely scenario that the situation returns to where it stood before this awful new chapter, the two sides would still have no basis for new negotiations. This document fails on basic points. It does not end the violence. And, most importantly, it does not tell us that Hamas has decided to give up its intention to destroy Israel. Without that precondition, there's hardly a point to peace talks.

Did Hamas Recognize Israel?

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/
opinion/14944297.htm

Published 7/1/06
For a brief moment this week, two days after Palestinians kidnapped 19-year-old Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit, and just a few hours before Israel launched a major incursion for his release, an item of seemingly promising news flashed across computer screens throughout the world. The radical Islamic group Hamas, the headlines proclaimed, had at last decided to grant ''implicit'' recognition of Israel's right to exist. Hamas, which runs the Palestinian Authority government, had always proclaimed its goal of destroying Israel. Had the extremist group suddenly changed? The headlines wishfully indicated that is exactly what had happened. That interpretation, however, was more than premature: It was patently incorrect.

With developments in the Middle East as distressing as ever, a world hungry for good news latched on to the announcement that Hamas and Fatah, the bitter rivals of Palestinian politics, had agreed to the so-called Prisoners Document, marking a possible new beginning for peace. Commentators called it a major breakthrough, and many, including Palestinian leaders, suggested that international sanctions against the Hamas-led PA could soon end. Perhaps the sides would now tiptoe to the peace table.

Even now, with Israeli tanks in Gaza, one still hears both Western and Arab commentators perpetuating the growing myth that Hamas has recognized Israel.

The document, written by Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, offers a stunning display of vagueness on what some perceive as concessions, combined with absolute specificity on points that Israel has consistently rejected over years of negotiations. Nowhere does it announce recognition of Israel's right to exist. The closest it comes is saying the Palestinians seek to achieve freedom, ''including the right to establish their independent state with al-Quds al-Shareef (Jerusalem) as its capital on all territories occupied in 1967.'' That suggests the possibility of two states. But it is not a real departure for Hamas.

Hamas -- whose charter acknowledges Israel by saying, ''Israel will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it'' -- had already offered a long-term truce if Israel would withdraw to 1967 lines. Its wishes to destroy Israel after the truce were never hidden.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah had threatened to call a referendum on the document, unless Hamas agreed to it, while Fatah and Hamas gunmen were shooting at each other and Palestinians teetered on the verge of civil war.

This week, the impending Israeli incursion, and the real threat that Hamas would lose power, persuaded its leaders to sign. But Hamas spokesmen promptly and unequivocally declared that they were absolutely not conceding Israel's right to exist.

The document steps back from negotiating positions that brought Israelis and Palestinians closer in pre-Hamas days. It demands Israel's return to pre-1967 lines, whose strategic vulnerability both sides knew demanded redrawing. And Israel, of course, would never completely withdraw from Jerusalem. Both sides also know that Israel will not fully agree to the so-called right of return to Israel proper by all Palestinian refugees, which the document demands. That would mark the end of Israel as a Jewish state, amounting to demographic suicide. Israelis see this as another ploy to annihilate it. Compromise positions on the issue had emerged at Camp David.

With Hamas -- considered a terrorist group by the European Union, the United States and Israel, among others -- in control of the legislature, foreign donors stopped the gushing flow of cash to the PA. They demanded three conditions before aid would resume. Hamas would have to recognize Israel's right to exist; accept previously signed agreements with Israel and renounce violence. The agreement does little to address these fundamental issues.

Far from renouncing violence, it enshrines the Palestinians' right to continue resistance ''in various means,'' presumably including suicide bombings against civilians. Just days ago, a top European Union official visiting the region described the document as a ''step forward.'' But, she added, it is not enough to satisfy the conditions for renewed aid.

So, as much as we would all like to see a glimmer of hope for peace, this document is not the place to find it. Even if Shalit is released and Israeli tanks roll out of Gaza; even in the unlikely scenario that the situation returns to where it stood before this awful new chapter, the two sides would still have no basis for new negotiations. This document fails on basic points. It does not end the violence. And, most importantly, it does not tell us that Hamas has decided to give up its intention to destroy Israel. Without that precondition, there's hardly a point to peace talks.

Iraq and the War of Ideas

(see the article in the Miami Herald's Site)


Published June 20, 2006

Somebody told President Bush not to gloat about the killing of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the psychopathic head of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Even as he made his hush-hush trip to Iraq last Tuesday, President Bush kept to the carefully calibrated message of optimism without boasting. It must be hard. You can almost see him clenching his jaw as he tries to hold back the cheers in order to sound thoughtful, sober and restrained speaking of that rare achievement, a desperately needed military and intelligence victory by American forces.

The president, however, should loosen up a bit, and take this opportunity to take another rare and desperately needed move: Throw Donald Rumsfeld a party -- a thank-you and good-bye party.

In fact, the White House should play up the recent victory and celebrate by dumping the secretary of defense and shutting down that gift to al Qaeda propaganda, the shameful and counter-productive prison at Guantánamo Bay.

Send Rumsfeld out under the banner of a new beginning now that Zarqawi's dead and Iraq has an elected government. Claim the world is safer and we no longer need the prison or the secretary. But take action now.

The war against Islamic extremist terrorism and its ideology requires strategic thinking on two fronts. One front is military. There, Zarqawi's death marks an undeniable success. The other front, at least as important as the first, is persuading the masses, the people who are trying to decide whose ideology to support, that the United States stands for something more desirable, more humane, more legitimate than what Zarqawi, bin Laden and their followers are offering. The Bush White House has all but ignored that crucial part of the war.

It's time for America to reclaim the hilltops of human decency.

A military victory like the killing of a man like Zarqawi, charismatic, blood thirsty and operationally ingenious, should be followed by a quick effort to maintain the offensive. American forces, we are told, conducted dozens of raids against other al Qaeda operatives in Iraq immediately after the hit on Zarqawi. The Iraqi people celebrated, and U.S. troops slapped high fives.

It's not surprising, however, that the United States had to quickly deflect any emerging rumors that Zarqawi might have been shot after being captured. That's because many around the globe, and probably the majority in the Arab and Muslim worlds, are ready to believe the worst about America. That is the direct result of policies implemented by the White House and the Pentagon.

Besides the killing of Zarqawi, the other big stories from the war front are the suspected massacre of Iraqi civilians by U.S. Marines at Haditha, and the suicide of three prisoners at Guantánamo. The Haditha atrocities, if proven true, trace straight back to Rumsfeld's anything-goes policies. So did the horrors at Abu Ghraib.

At one point, it looked like the American people, and their government, felt that what happened at Abu Ghraib was so outrageous, so intolerable, that the most severe punishment should come upon those responsible. Rumsfeld, grilled in both the House and the Senate, dramatically declared, ''These events occurred on my watch, and I take full responsibility.'' We know what came next: Nothing happened to Rumsfeld. The White House handled the incidents as a fluke, the misbehavior of a few stray individuals. Regardless of what the speeches said, the message to the rest of the world was that America wasn't all that ashamed after all.

America should be deeply ashamed, and I believe the American people indeed are. They also should be embarrassed that an American official called the suicides at Guantánamo ''a good PR move.'' The worst regimes in history have a track record of detaining individuals and imprisoning them indefinitely without charging them or putting them on trial for their crimes. The United States is right to fight against terrorism. But if America continues these practices, it will never reclaim its respect, prestige and dignity.

Congress would gladly write the laws required to imprison and try terrorists with some form of due process.

Winning the war against Muslim fanatics who stop at nothing, and opening the way to democracy in the Middle East, requires showing the millions who are watching that there's a better way than the seventh century Islamic theocracy of Bin Laden, or the king, emir or president-for-life formula that has kept the people of Middle East in a state of tragic, combustible stagnation.

So, Mr. Bush, let Rumsfeld leave on a high note. Tell him, ''Thanks for your work. Time to retire.'' And, for the sake of America's principles, dignity and its standing in the world, shut down Guantánamo. It's a perfect time for a new beginning.

Frida Ghitis writes on world affairs.