Last weekend, during a GOP debate in Iowa, George Stephanopoulos noted that Bush’s alleged democracy-spreading foreign policy hasn’t exactly worked out well: “There have been free elections in Gaza; they elected Hamas. There have been free elections in Lebanon; they empowered Hezbollah. There have been free elections in Iran; they elected President Ahmadinejad.” Asked about the track record, former Gov. Mike Huckabee responded, “Sometimes when you get what you want, you don’t want what you get.”
With that background in mind, Hassan Fattah has a terrific report on how the U.S. government can promote elections, champion democracy, and stand behind like-minded allies, but our support doesn’t always translate well.
Lebanon’s political spin masters have been trying in recent days to explain the results of last Sunday’s pivotal by-election, which saw a relatively unknown candidate from the opposition narrowly beat a former president, Amin Gemayel.
There has been talk of the Christian vote and the Armenian vote, of history and betrayal, as each side sought to claim victory. There is one explanation, however, that has become common wisdom in the region: Mr. Gemayel’s doom seems to have been sealed by his support from the Bush administration and the implied agendas behind its backing.
“It’s the kiss of death,” said Turki al-Rasheed, a Saudi reformer who watched last Sunday’s elections closely. “The minute you are counted on or backed by the Americans, kiss it goodbye, you will never win.”
The paradox of American policy in the Middle East — promoting democracy on the assumption it will bring countries closer to the West — is that almost everywhere there are free elections, the American-backed side tends to lose.
Throughout the post-WWII era, foreign leaders used to promote their bonds with the United States as a sign of strength and credibility. We were a beacon of hope that countries were anxious to be associated with. Not anymore.
In reality, Bush’s democracy talk has always been more about rhetorical games than actual policy anyway, but so long as the administration continues to call for more elections, it can continue to expect discouraging results.
Digby explains what has to happen moving forward.
I doubt that anyone overseas has been any more impressed with their commitment to democracy than I have since they launched it directly after stealing an election at home and telling everyone who raised the slightest protest to go cheney themselves. There may be people in the world less credible on the issue of democracy, but I can’t think of any who have made such a fetish of insisting that other countries do as they say but not as they do.
Furthermore, the Bush administration has such a reputation for lying and incompetence, the smart bet is to do exactly the opposite of what they prescribe in any situation. You can’t go wrong assuming that if they want something it’s for self-serving reasons and that if they get what they want, they will screw it up so badly that even if it were well-intentioned it would come out badly anyway.
This is going to be a big problem for the US for a long time to come…. No matter what a new administration does, the single most important rhetorical tool they must employ is Bush bashing. And I mean that seriously. Our credibility around the world is moribund until the US government repudiates George W. Cheney.
I think that’s absolutely right, but I’d add that this repudiation will be even more effective once a reality-based foreign policy is in place, too.
“No politician can afford to identify with the West because poll after poll shows people don’t believe in the U.S. agenda,” said Mustafa Hamarneh, until recently the director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan. Mr. Hamarneh is running for a seat in Jordan’s Parliament in November, but he says he has made a point of keeping his campaign focused locally, and on bread-and-butter issues. “If somebody goes after you as pro-American he can hurt you,” he said.
In part, regional analysts say, candidates are tainted by the baggage of American foreign policy — from its backing of Israel to the violence in Iraq. But more important, they say, American support is often applied to one faction instead of to institutions, causing further division rather than bringing stability.
“The Americans think that supporting democracy should create positive reactions,” said Nicola Nassif, a columnist with the left-leaning Lebanese daily Al Akhbar. “No one can be against democracy, sovereignty, independence and freedom. But not if it upsets the internal power balance, not if it empowers one party against the other, especially in a country where supporting one group can lead to violence and even civil wars.”
The next president has a lot of work to do.