A good piece by Geoffrey Wheatcroft in the International Herald Tribune voices a common concern about current democratic movements in the Islamic world:
Nearly 73 years ago one of the greatest democracies on earth held a general election under universal suffrage. None of several parties won an absolute majority, but one was the clear winner, doubling its vote to 37.4 percent to become the largest group in Parliament.
That autumn, President Herbert Hoover was up for re-election and the Republican convention managers might perhaps have produced a satisfied voter from that faraway country, in the way a grateful Iraqi was flourished in Washington recently by the Bush administration. Not surprisingly, they didn't do so. The country was of course Germany, and the triumphant party was the National Socialists, led by Hitler.
That 1932 election showed that democracy often raises as many problems as it answers, a lesson we may soon learn again in the Middle East.
It is obviously a serious concern that free elections in Arabia might bring to power the worst sort, though it is equally obvious that the lack of elections keeps a lot of very nasty sorts in power. But I think that a little more analysis is in order.
Hitler seized power with this small plurality because there was no part of society that had the will to resist him. For precisely this reason, places like Iraq are better off for being ethnically and religiously diverse. One thing the Sunnis and Kurds and Shiites can agree on is that they don't want to be ruled by an autocrat of a different color. This can be a bulwark against a new tyranny.
Another lesson that 1932 teaches is that outside influences matter. The world should put every pressure it can bring to bear in order to ensure that the governments develop along liberal and constitutional lines. It is a pipe dream to believe that autocrats in the Middle East can create the conditions for future democracy. Its better to try to help them emerge now.
Recent Comments