Democratizing the Middle East

by David Grand
November 20, 2003

That's apparently the latest rationale the president has come up with to justify conquering and occupying Iraq , referring to it as "a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."

While that may be a noble goal, it could take as long to achieve, and prove to be as unattainable, as were the eight Holy Crusades of the late 11th through the 13th century, in attempting to recover Christian holy places from the Muslims. And incredulous as it sounds to us, the fundamentalist Muslims fervently believe that freedom isn't found in democracy, but in their god Allah and in following his teachings; and that it's we, not they, who live in bondage.

And despite any differences the Arab nations may have, especially as regards their relationships with the U.S. , the one thing on which they're united is their resentment of Western countries interfering in their internal affairs and presuming to tell them the form of government they should adopt. In touching that raw nerve, they react like the Three Musketeers: "All for one and one for

In reviewing Iraq 's history, which dates back some 5,000 years when it was called Mesopotamia , "the cradle of civilization," I noted that we aren't the first Western power to occupy that country. The British beat us to it at the end of World War 1, when the League of Nations gave them a mandate to administer Iraq until it established its own government. (My, doesn't that sound familiar, albeit we didn't have such a mandate from the U.N.). And upon gaining their full independence from Britain in 1932, they created a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system.

Speaking of drawing up a constitution, dragging their heels as much as the Iraqi Governing Council has up to now (with only a handful of 'em often showing up for its meetings), the possibility of them hitting our deadlines of June 2004 for forming a transitional government, and by June 2005 to prepare a constitution, is doubtful at best, even with us constantly kicking 'em in the rear. (And just think, our founding fathers knocked one out in only 17 weeks.) Better that we just go ahead and write one for the country, much as General MacArthur did for Japan after World War 11. That way we'd be assured it was patterned after ours and wasn't full of loopholes.

Now, I've never heard a precise definition of what constitutes a democracy, even though I know one when I see it, like the one I bask in everyday. But even greater minds than mine have varying views on its meaning:

• "Democracy is the worst system devised by the wit of man, except for all the others." (Winston Churchill)
• "Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage." (H.L. Mencken)
• "Democracy is a form of government you have to keep for four years no matter what it does." (Will Rogers )
• "Our rare disease is Democracy." (Alexander Hamilton)
• "Democracy decides matters by counting heads rather than breaking
• "Democracy is a government where you can say what you think even if you don't think." (Alexander Meiklejohn)
• "Democracy accepts in theory, and realizes in practice better than any other forms of government, the humane and rational values of life." (Carl Becker)
• "Democracy means, not that I'm as good as you are, but that you're as good as I am." (Theodore Parker).

Well, no matter how it may be defined, selling the concept of democracy throughout the Middle East will, to me, be as impossible as the Southern Baptists achieving its goal of persuading Jews to convert to Christianity. And if we try to shove it down their throats, you can bet the oil spigots in those OPEC countries would be shut off quicker than a striking snake, and we'd find ourselves re-living the hardships of the 1973 oil embargo. And who needs that?