Election Backlash: Iraq, Palestine and Israel

The phrase "democratic elections" can be misleading in its positive connotation, especially when the countries where the elections take place are embroiled in conflict. In the Middle East, during the past six months, we have witnessed three sets of elections. Each has further entangled an already complex situation. There were the Iraqi elections in December 2005, then the January 2006 elections for the Palestinian Authority (PA), and, in March, the Israeli elections. In the first two instances, the voting took place during or just after a bloody war; the elections aspired to usher in a new era of conflict resolution.

Iraq

Let's begin with Iraq. This country was chosen by the militant Bush administration to serve as a guinea pig in its crusade to eliminate (selectively) dictatorships in the Middle East. The larger purpose was to make the opening shot in a new global policy - now that the Soviet Union was gone - for "shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests."[1] The document from which we have quoted, called Rebuilding America's Defenses (September 2000), became the basis for the foreign and defense policy of US President George W. Bush.

The attacks of September 11, 2001 gave new urgency to America's drive for global control, as reflected in a later document, "The National Security Strategy of the United States", published by the Bush Administration on September 20, 2002.[2] It contains what came to be known as the Bush Doctrine: "While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively..." The consequence was clear: Americans would not be safe until Uncle Sam secured its position as the world's sole superpower. The first step would be to seize control of the Middle East's oil reserves. This could be packaged as a noble campaign to democratize the region.

The Bush Administration skipped over one little detail: the ethnic and religious structure of Iraq. If it had replaced Saddam Hussein with some other ruthless dictator, it might have gotten the control it wanted. But no, the pretext was democracy, so democracy it had to be. In a society like Iraq's, however, where ethnic affiliations and religious belief are prime organizing factors, democracy inevitably becomes an alternative form of tyranny. A religious majority will put God's law first. An ethnic majority will seek to ensure its dominance. When Bush and his neo-cons talked about democracy in Iraq, they were selling it to Americans within an American context. Democracy can be a force for peace and justice, including protection of minority rights, but only under certain conditions. Scientific, industrial and urban revolutions must have done their work, breaking the power of clans and promoting secularization (a prerequisite for separating religion from the state). Even that doesn't bring economic justice, but it's a step. However, you can't take a thing like "democratic elections" out of your secular, industrial context and impose it on a tribal, religious society without getting tyranny-of-the-majority.

More
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4700.shtml