The 'Democratic' Republican

President George Bush painted a grandvision of democracy in the Arab world as a "forward strategy of freedom" and directly questioned SaudiArabia, Syria and Egypt about reforming their ossified system of government in a major foreign policy addressthis week.

It is the first time that an American president has said anything as direct about change and inclusion ofwomen in politics in the Arab world. It was a shake-up-and-wake-up-the-sheikhdoms speech. The rhetorical gunwas mainly pointed at Saudi Arabia, the custodian of the faith and one of the slowest to embrace change. It isa country where women may not sit in the front seat of the car even as passengers.

But Islam and democracy can co-exist and yes, poor people also enjoy exercising their freedom at the polls.In both cases, Bush cited India as an example, recalling the snide dismissal by the British about those"illiterates not caring a fig about politics."

Bush’s speech was nothing if not a tectonic shift and an admission of mistakes made in the past.

"Sixty years of western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East didnothing to make us safe because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty."

Good words and an American president’s words must be and are taken seriously by people around the world.Yes, even after the intelligence cook-out on Iraq and the ever shifting reasons for going to war.

Bush invoked Ronald Reagan, the Republican president every successor wants to emulate and whose predictionsabout the end of Soviet communism were dismissed as naïve at the time but later hailed as prescient. Reaganoccupies a sacred spot in the modern Republican pantheon for the "revolution" he triggered by squeezingthe "evil empire," eventually cracking the Berlin Wall. Grasping those links, Bush chose to deliver hisspeech at the National Endowment for Democracy, an institution created by Reagan and the US Congress in thoseheady days with a mandate to carry forward the "momentum of freedom." The symbolism was heavy. First theSoviet empire, now the Arab world.

A reality check might be timely. How does democracy jive with the overarching, overwhelming, all-consumingUS war on terror? Bush relies heavily on the very same autocratic and non-democratic regimes as frontlinestates that he wants transformed and swept in the tidal wave of democracy. When they look over their shouldersto Iraq, they freeze in their undemocratic boots.

Project Iraq is not an attractive ad for the Bush revolution. He might want to create a good prototypebefore ordering copies. The Saudis and the Kuwaitis won’t be nudged toward democracy against the backgroundof an Iraq exploding with bombs. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be "encouraged" to enter the 21stcentury and pushed toward a more representative system. 

No doubt the occupation of Iraq is "a long, hardslog," in the now famous words of Donald Rumsfeld from his leaked memo. The daily attacks, the seamy saga ofreconstruction contracts, the exaggerated attempts at spinning (the attack on Al-Rashid hotel was labelled asign of success by Bush), the vanity of the main actors and the imperious manner of dealing with the Iraqipeople do not raise hope. It is apparent that Paul Wolfowitz and company dreamt this dream of invading Iraqfor years, yet didn’t have a real plan for dealing with the aftermath.

The only real plan they had was to dismantle and disperse, de-Baathise and disinfect Iraq in a hurry withno cadres of replacement manpower to move in. They first disbanded the Iraqi army but now want itreconstituted. Meanwhile, Iraq’s borders are not secure and anyone with a grudge against the Americans is ona mission. There is a big bull’s eye painted over the country.

As for showcasing "democracy," things are not much better. Of the $87 billion that Bush signed with aflourish for Iraq and Afghanistan, calling it the "greatest commitment of its kind since the Marshall Plan,"only $20 billion is going for reconstruction. The rest is for occupation -- for the 130,000 US soldierscurrently deployed in the simmering laboratory for democracy. Please, no more comparisons with the MarshallPlan. They sound hollow against the evidence of American companies are dipping deep and hard into the pot forthemselves, claiming refurbished and repaired schools on paper while sub-contractors disappear on the job.Water and power plants are running in Baghdad thanks to the ingenuity of the Iraqis splicing, cannibalizingand using decades of smarts earned from running an old, dilapidated system.

To ask why things are so out of control is not audacious. How could those who conceived of Project Iraqhave got it so wrong and been so ill-prepared for the aftermath? Rumsfeld’s leaked memo admits thepossibility of failure for all practical purposes. It takes the sheen away from Bush’s "MissionAccomplished" triumphalism sounded on May Day. It bluntly asks whether US forces are winning and what "bold,"new measures are needed for victory. "Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the globalwar on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists than ... the radicalclerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?" Rumsfeld wrote. "Is our current situation suchthat the 'harder we work, the behinder we get'?" These questions should have been asked before declaring waron Iraq.

It is good to wish democracy on a region alien to it but before undertaking the transformation of the Arabworld, Bush will have to ask even tougher questions. And provide good answers. The Reagan Revolution took holdbecause a clear leadership was in the wings in most countries. Giants like Vaclav Havel merely had to step outto be embraced by millions. In the Arab world, those waiting in the wings are no Vaclav Havels.