There should be no let-up in the war for democracy

The centre of power has shifted in Washington . In the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq , popular opinion was that the neo-cons at the Pentagon had trumped the liberal and realist diplomats at the State Department and that war-war would overtake jaw-jaw, to paraphrase Churchill. Recently, however, US President George W. Bush has moved to institutionalise his foreign policy by shifting some of the power out of the White House and Defense Department and into the Department of State and international institutions, where it will be more effective in the long-term. The President’s first act was to make one of his closest advisors, Condeleeza Rice, Secretary of State. With Dr Rice installed as America ‘s top diplomat, convincing former US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick to serve as No 2 (a demotion from his former position), was feasible.

Then we saw the President move Under Secretary John Bolton out of arms control and up to the US Mission to the UN, showing a real commitment to reform the international body, rather than sideline it.

Two weeks ago, Karen Hughes, who has been with Bush since his days as Texas governor and has been described as the most powerful woman ever to serve in the White House, was tapped to promote American values abroad as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. Add to that the Pentagon’s Paul Wolfowitz being nominated to run the World Bank and Cabinet Secretary Ann Veneman heading UNICEF, and the picture is complete. Any half-rate fortune teller can divine what this means for repressive regimes around the world, especially in the largely undemocratic Middle East: the US military has done its job, creating an environment in which eight million Iraqis could go to the polls, and now it’s time for policymakers to nurture democracy. A crystal ball would be more helpful in ascertaining what this shift means for America ‘s allies.

Coalition countries might now be asked to do more than send troops; tomorrow’s discussions may well be about fostering democracy in other ways. President Bush has said he intends to ”support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world”. Where does this leave a country like Australia , which has fought alongside America is every war over the past 100 years? How do the Australian people intend to participate in World War IV, the war against terrorism (which, it looks like has morphed into a war for democracy)? In the modern West, we tend to conflate the concepts of democracy and liberalism. This is because for the past 50 or 60 years, most Western governments have had both democracy and constitutional liberalism. (Until then, most of them had adopted important aspects of the latter, but not the universal suffrage required for true democracy.)

So today, when we talk about a democracy, we usually mean the good guys: a country with free and fair elections that safeguards individual autonomy and dignity through the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties such as speech, assembly, religion, and property. Unfortunately, to use the one word, democracy, to mean both a form of electing government and good governance is to render the term subjective and, therefore, useless. Certainly, the movements toward democracy in Afghanistan , Iraq , the Palestinian territories, Egypt , Syria , and elsewhere are to be applauded. Fostering mechanisms for the people of the Middle East to elect their own leaders, make their own decisions, and chart their own paths – right or wrong -is praiseworthy. But it’s also insufficient.

Just as in Eastern Europe , we can predict where democracy will flourish and where it will stumble. Countries with a history of liberal institutions and free markets – like Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary last time, or Iraq and Egypt this time – are the most likely to make the transition smoothly. Countries without such liberal foundations are more likely to falter. In order truly to foster peace and prosperity, the United States and its allies should take this opportunity to formulate a multi-faceted approach: praise multi-party elections, but at the same time cultivate liberal institutions and capitalism. As New York Times columnist Tom Friedman pointed out recently, if we can free the economies of countries such as Lebanon and Egypt , ”they will change the rest of the Middle East for us – for free”.

April W. Palmerlee is a Visiting Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies and a former Senior Official at the US Department of State.