Is “Arab Democracy” Worth All This Chaos?
With the most recent wave of unrest throughout the middle east, it again begs the question:
A new phenomenon called “Arab democracy” was born—that is, a democracy in which the militias are part of the government and in which the government is too weak to control the militias. Hamas has a majority in the Palestinian parliament and controls the government; Hezbollah holds 25 of the 128 seats in the Lebanese parliament and controls at least two ministries. But in both cases, the weak leadership is unable to rein in the armed militants, who are effectively controlled by outside destabilizing forces, namely Syria and Iran.
…So, a dilemma is emerging: Is Arab democracy so important that maintaining it is worth paying the price of chaos and instability? And is there a way to establish an Arab democracy that’s stable from the outset?
This question needs to be answered by the Bush administration, because for the other players in the region, the answer is quite clear by now. For Israel—it’s security first, both in Gaza and in Lebanon, no matter what the consequences for democracy. In the Arab world, the reaction is similar. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal denounced Hezbollah by saying that their acts “will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them.” What better way to remind the world, yet again, that getting rid of the region’s autocratic regimes can be a risky business.
[from slate.com]
(see also Democracy In Iraq)
(Somewhat) Similar Posts:
News of chaos in Iraq is no longer a surprise to any of us. Reuters reported on some of the most recent unrest, and...{democracy:7}...{democracy:12}...{democracy:10}...