Playing The Democracy Card

The United States flaunts the banner of democracy in the Middle East onlywhen that advances its economic, military, or strategic interests. The historyof the past six decades shows that whenever there has been conflict betweenfurthering democracy in the region and advancing American national interests,U.S. administrations have invariably opted for the latter course. Furthermore,when free and fair elections in the Middle East have produced results that runcontrary to Washington's strategic interests, it has either ignored them ortried to block the recurrence of such events.

Washington's active involvement in the region began in 1933 when Standard OilCompany of California bid ten times more than the British-dominated IraqPetroleum Company for exclusive petroleum exploration rights in Saudi Arabia'seastern Hasa province.

As a leading constituent of Allied forces in World War II, the U.S. got itsbreak in Iran after the occupation of that country by the British and theSoviets in August 1941. Eight months later President Franklin Roosevelt ruledthat Iran was eligible for lend-lease aid. In August 1943, Secretary of StateCordell Hull said, "It is to our interest that no great power beestablished on the Persian Gulf opposite the important American petroleumdevelopment in Saudi Arabia."

The emergence of Israel in 1948 added a new factor. Following its immediaterecognition of Israel, Washington devised a military-diplomatic strategy in theregion which rested on the triad of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the new state ofIsrael, with the overall aim of keeping Soviet influence out of the Middle East.While each member of the troika was tied closely to the U.S., and links betweenIran and Israel became progressively tighter, Saudi Arabia and Israel, thoughstaunchly anti-Communist, remained poles apart. Nonetheless, the overallarrangement remained in place until the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979.

Besides pursuing the common aim of countering Soviet advances in the regionovertly and covertly, each member of this troika had a special function. Beingcontiguous with the Soviet Union, Iran under the Shah helped the Pentagon byproviding it with military bases. By inflicting a lightning defeat on Egypt andSyria -- then aligned with Moscow -- in June 1967, Israel proved its militaryvalue to the U.S. This strengthened Washington's resolve to get Israel acceptedby its Arab neighbors, a policy it had adopted in 1948 and implemented soonafter, even though it meant subverting democracy in Syria.

In March 1949, following Brig.-General Husni Zaim's promise to make peacewith Israel, the CIA helped him mount a military coup against a democraticallyelected government in Syria. After Zaim had signed a truce with Israel on July20, he tried to negotiate a peace treaty with it through American officials. Amonth later, however, he was ousted by a group of military officers andexecuted. The military rule that Washington triggered lasted five years albeitunder different generals.

As the possessor of the largest reserves of petroleum in the region, SaudiArabia helped the U.S. and its Western allies by keeping oil prices low.Furthermore, as a powerful and autocratic monarchy Saudi Arabia played a leadingrole in helping to suppress democratic movements in the small, neighboring,oil-rich Gulf States.

American clout increased when Britain -- the dominant foreign power in theregion for a century and a half -- withdrew from the Gulf in 1971. The Britishwithdrawal allowed the U.S. to expand its regional role as the four freshlyindependent Gulf States -- Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman --struggled to adjust to the new reality. But instead of pressuring thesesheikhdoms to institute democracy, Washington either opted for secret defenseagreements with them or let the House of Saud implement an anti-democraticagenda in the region unhindered.

The Saudi Anti-Democratic Mission

In 1962, during a severe crisis in the House of Saud, Crown Prince Faisalpromised political reform, especially the promulgation of a written constitutionspecifying a Consultative Council, with two-thirds of its members elected. Butwhen he ascended the throne two years later he reneged on his promise.

Washington said nothing. It also remained silent when Riyadh helped suppressdemocracy in neighboring countries.

After its independence from Britain in 1961, Kuwait acquired a constitutionwhich specified a National Assembly elected on a franchise limited to malesbelonging to families domiciled in Kuwait since 1921 -- in other words, about afifth of adult citizens. Despite its limited nature, the Assembly evolved into apopular forum for expressing the aspirations and grievances of several importantconstituencies. Stung by criticism of official policies by its representatives,and encouraged by the Saudi monarch, Kuwaiti Emir Sabah ibn Salim al Sabahsuspended the Assembly in 1976, accusing it of "malicious behavior,"and then dissolved it. Its revival in 1981 lasted a mere five years.

At no point did Washington criticize the ruler's undemocratic actions.

Since 1992, when limited parliamentary elections were restored, voters havereturned more Islamist MPs than pro-Western liberals. Emir Jabar ibn Ahmad alSabah's efforts to extend the vote to women have failed, while he has made nomove to extend the vote to the remaining four-fifths of adult male citizens --nor has America pressured him to do so. He and the Americans fear, of course,that a universal adult male franchise would bolster the strength of the Islamistbloc in the Assembly.

Bahrain: Limited Democracy Derailed

In Bahrain, Saudi Arabia's anti-democratic mission melded with America'smilitary needs. Bahrain became independent in August 1971. Its constitution,drafted by a constituent assembly (half nominated, half elected on a limitedfranchise), specified a National Assembly of 42 deputies, 30 of whom were to beelected on a restricted franchise. The first Assembly convened in December 1972while Saudi Arabia watched warily.

As in Kuwait, however, the elected representatives criticized the government,angering the ruler, Shaikh Isa al Khalifa. This -- combined with pressure fromRiyadh -- led the Emir to dissolve the Assembly in August 1975 and suspend theconstitution.

Once again, Washington said nothing about the quashing of limited democracyin Bahrain. Why? In 1971, after the Pentagon leased naval facilities previouslyused by the British, Bahrain became the headquarters of the American Middle EastForce. In 1977, the ruler extended the US-Bahraini agreement; and in 1995Bahrain became the headquarters of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet.

Jordan: An Election Law Altered by Decree

Jordan provides another telling example of how American administrations havedealt with democracy in the Middle East. In an uncommonly free and fair electionin November 1989, the Islamic Action Front (IAF), the political wing of theMuslim Brotherhood, won 32 seats in the 80-member House of Representatives. Itjoined the government and ran five ministries.

During the 1990 Kuwait crisis which culminated in the 1991 Gulf War, theJordanian king took into account popular opinion, both inside and outsideparliament, which was opposed to joining the US-led alliance against Iraq, andadvocated a negotiated solution to the crisis. By so doing, he acted as aconstitutional monarch.

Instead of praising this welcome democratic development, the administrationof George Herbert Walker Bush pilloried Hussein as "a dwarf king."Unable to stand the pressure, King Hussein crawled back into Washington's foldafter the 1991 Gulf War. To thwart the possibility of the IAF emerging as theleading party in the next election, he altered the election law by decree. Inquietly applauding his action, the elder Bush's administration showed itscynical disregard for democracy.

Egypt: Supporting the Autocrat

While King Hussein manipulated the Jordanian political system with somesophistication to achieve the result he wanted, President Anwar Sadat of Egyptblatantly used the government machinery and state-run media to produce apre-ordained electoral result to endorse his signing of the U.S.-brokeredbilateral peace treaty with Israel in 1978-79 after he had broken ranks with theArab League.

The depth and durability of popular antipathy towards peace with Israel,while it continues to occupy the Palestinian Territories, is highlighted by thefact that a quarter-century after the peace treaty, relations between the twoneighbors remain cold. While remaining firmly under American tutelage, PresidentHusni Mabarak has continued to spurn offers to visit Tel Aviv.

As in Jordan, the Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest political party in theMiddle East and long outlawed in Egypt, offers a credible challenge to thesemi-dictatorship of Mubarak (in power since 1981). His regime has continued tobe the second largest recipient of the U.S. aid after Israel under bothDemocratic and Republican Presidents.

Several months ago, Mubarak mused that democracy in Egypt would mean MuslimBrotherhood rule over the country. The key question now is: Will Mubarak -- whorecently agreed to hold the Presidential election scheduled for Septemberthrough "direct, secret balloting" instead of simply rubber-stampinghis sole candidacy in a stage-managed referendum -- let the Brotherhoodchallenge him?

The answer will come in the wording with which Article 76 of the constitutionwill be amended and passed by a Parliament dominated by Mubarak's NationalDemocratic Party. At present, it specifies a single presidential candidate,endorsed by at least two-thirds of parliamentary deputies, to be offered to thevoters for approval.

Yemen: Rebuffing Democracy

Another victim of the way American administrations have placed their narrowinterests above any program to democratize the Middle East was Yemen. Ever sincethe creation of Republic of Yemen, following the union of North Yemen and SouthYemen in 1991, the country has had a multiparty political system. Indeed, sinceNorth Yemen had been governed by the General People's Congress and South Yemenby the Yemen Socialist Party, a peaceful unification could only come aboutthrough the creation of a multi-party system.

In April 1993, the government organized the first general election on theArabian Peninsula based on universal suffrage. It was for a 301-member House ofRepresentatives and the Presidency. This historic event went unnoticed in theUnited States where the Clinton administration continued to rebuff the Yemenigovernment because of its insistence on an Arab solution to the 1990-91 Kuwaitcrisis and its negative vote on United Nations Security Council Resolution 678authorizing military action against Iraq.

Encouraged by the Yemeni election, six Saudi human rights activists --professors, judges, and senior civil servants -- established the Committee forthe Defense of Legitimate Rights (CDLR) in Saudi Arabia. It demanded politicalreform in the kingdom, including elections based on universal suffrage.Government persecution followed, including job dismissals and arrests. Prof.Muhammad al Masaari, the head of the CDLR, managed to flee first to Yemen, andthen to Britain.

Yet Washington did not protest.

Now George W. Bush loudly applauds the local elections held recently in theSaudi Kingdom. His administration ignores the fact that only half of the seatswere even open for contest, and so distrustful were Saudi citizens of theirgovernment's electoral promise that only a quarter of eligible voters evenbothered registered. Women were, of course, barred from voting.

By contrast, Bush endlessly laments the absence of freedom for the people ofIran, which his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently described as"a totalitarian state." These statements run counter to the facts.Since the 1979 revolution in that country, the Islamic regime has held sevenparliamentary, eight presidential, and two local elections -- as well as fourAssembly of Experts polls -- all of them multi-candidate and based on universalsuffrage with a voting age of 15.

What explains this blatant myopia? While practicing an Islamic version ofdemocracy, Iran is actively opposing the economic, military, and strategicambitions of America in the region.

Actually, the historic pattern of American administrations in the Middle East-- downgrading democracy at the expense of narrow national interests -- is inline with what the United States has been practicing in Central and SouthAmerica for a much longer period -- a phenomenon that has gone largely unnoticedin the United States itself.

Dilip Hiro is the author of TheEssential Middle East: A Comprehensive Guide (Caroll & Graf) and Secretsand Lies: Operation "Iraqi Freedom" and After (NationBooks). Courtesy, Tomdispatch.com (where you can also read a long introduction and perspective on this column and more).Copyright 2005 Dilip Hiro. A printed version of this article will appear in MiddleEast International, no. 746.