Commentary—

Freedom Doesn’t March; It Meanders

By Nathan R. Turner

What with recent elections in Iraq and Palestine, a pledge by the president of Egypt to hold competitive elections, and a popular uprising in Lebanon, many are wondering if, as George W. Bush has frequently stated, “freedom is on the march.” While recent developments in the Middle East are promising, and we should all hope that they lead to democratic reform, it is too early to jump to conclusions. In fact, it is not certain that freedom marches in the first place. Perhaps its indirect path would be better described as a mosey — or meander.

America’s own transition from British colony to bastion of democracy did not follow a direct route. As splendid as our history is, the freedom we enjoy today is the result of a slow process. The US Constitution, a standard throughout the world, was not a first attempt. It is what it is, in part, because of the lessons learned through the failed Articles of Confederation. Even with it safely in place, freedom has not been a certainty. The US Civil War, the bloodiest in our history, was fought as the states struggled to define freedom. For many, this freedom did not come until the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s — and the struggle continues.

Of course, it is impossible to compare the building of democracy in the United States with the current struggle in the Middle East. For one, the United States was developing a new form of government with no democratic nation to act as a mentor and to push it along. This is precisely the point. Democracy has worked here, although slowly, because it is a unique American creation and not imposed by an outside power. It is important to remember that democracy is not a gift one developed country bestows upon another. Instead, it is an indigenous creation of self-empowerment. In other words, Middle Eastern countries will become democratic as they choose that path for themselves, not as it is mandated by the United States. Yes, there is a lot that can be done to encourage the people of the Middle East to embrace democracy, but this region in particular has a history of resisting foreign powers. If the United States acts too forcefully, the result will be disdain for what it offers.

The availability of a mentor is not the only difference between the United States and these nations. Other factors that complicate democracy-building include a history of corrupt and repressive regimes, ethnic tensions, insurgencies, extreme poverty, and a lack of rule of law. As Fred Kaplan, in a March 2 article in Slate stated, “Freedom itself is a thin reed without the security, laws, and institutions to uphold it.” These issues will have to be addressed if there is to be any chance of democracy.

Recent events seem encouraging, but they are still only embers of democracy, not a brushfire.

The March 10 issue of the Economist noted that during the pro-Syria rally in Lebanon, protesters carried signs reading, “All our disasters come from America.” Clearly there is still a large segment of Middle Eastern society that is not convinced that the United States is there to help. Overbearing US power in the region, therefore, could be counterproductive and ultimately, hinder reform.

President Bush is right when he says all people deserve to be free. It is also encouraging when people embrace the basic principles of democracy, as recently witnessed in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, and to a lesser extent Egypt. The point, however, is that building democracy in the Middle East is going to be a slow process that must be carried out by the people of the Middle East themselves. While the United States can act in a supporting role, it must resist the temptation to rush the process. Doing so could merely lead to further resentment against us.

(Nathan R. Turner is a research assistant for the Center for Arms Control. Based in Washington, D.C., the center serves as a “watchdog” of the US Congress and Executive Branch on a range of arms control issues.)