Every time the [tag]president[/tag] talks about the war in Iraq, without fail, he speaks passionately about promoting [tag]democracy[/tag] in the region. It’s the ultimate defense for his disastrous [tag]war[/tag] — democracy is such a powerful force, [tag]Bush[/tag] argues, that it will make all the sacrifices worthwhile.
But for a president who claims to cherish democracy as an undeniable goal, he has a funny way of showing it.
While President Bush vows to transform [tag]Iraq[/tag] into a [tag]beacon of democracy[/tag] in the Middle East, his administration has been scaling back funding for the main organizations trying to carry out his vision by building democratic institutions such as political parties and civil society groups.
The administration has included limited new money for traditional democracy promotion in budget requests to Congress. Some organizations face funding cutoffs this month, while others struggle to stretch resources through the summer. The shortfall threatens projects that teach Iraqis how to create and sustain political parties, think tanks, human rights groups, independent media outlets, trade unions and other elements of democratic society.
One the one hand, you really have to wonder how, exactly, Bush believes democracy will take root without any effective democratic institutions. As Les Campbell, who runs programs in the Middle East for the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, said, “The commitment to what the president of the United States will say every single day of the week is his number one priority in Iraq, when it’s translated into action, looks very tiny.”
On the other hand, the unfortunate reality is that the president’s commitment was non-existent in the first place. As Kevin explained in a terrific post, Bush has never made promoting democracy a meaningful goal of his administration.
A man who is supposedly passionate about democracy can’t rouse himself to bother funding it. Instead the money is going into security.
These decisions may or may not be defensible, but they are plainly not the decisions of a man dedicated to [tag]spreading democracy[/tag] — and the fact that he repeatedly says otherwise doesn’t change this. So once and for all, can we please stop hearing about democracy promotion as a central goal of the Bush administration? It’s just a [tag]slogan[/tag] and nothing more.
It’s stunning to think about how many policies to which we could apply that exact same conclusion.