Reality sometimes trumps democracy

America is fast learning that idealism is not always capable of being translated into a working reality. Moreover, as in the case of Iraq, the medication is killing the patient and the doctor.

Democracy when prescribed to the Palestinians brought about a resounding victory for Hamas in their elections. Radical Islamic parties also showed strongly in elections in inter alia Egypt, Lebanon and Iraq itself. If, as the United States contends, democracy is the primary goal, then Islamic fundamentalists will rule in the majority of Muslim countries.

As realpolitik, in this case maintaining control of an economically strategic area, begins to set in, democracy seems to be the last thing on their minds.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.democracy/index.html

Let’s backtrack a bit:

One of the main premises on which George Bush relied in order to invade Iraq was the democratisation of the region. This he hoped to achieve by first turning Iraq into a democracy and then, like a stone in a pond, watch the ripples move outwards. The thinking, or as it was held out to us, was that democracies are primarily peaceful and less likely to attack other countries.

If we look back on two world wars and umpteen other conflicts, this is slightly misguided. And now that all the hubris and aggression is being overtaken by the reality on the ground, one question needs to be asked: Is democracy the be-all and end-all in every case?

I’d like to pose this as a question for debate rather than any great wisdom on my part. Truth is, I don’t know the answer.

If democracy is a must-have, then we need to accept the results that this system of government brings. If Islamic fundamentalism is the popular choice, then who are we to question it?

If the desire is for a caliphate, do we have the right to question it? If by democratic election a country elects a party whose goal is to demolish democracy upon taking power, can we question it?

This is presupposing that it’s democracy or bust!

Iraq, under Saddam, brought about far more regional stability than the powder keg we are looking at now. Of course that was scant consolation for the majority of Iraqis.

Zimbabwe under Mugabe has “enjoyed” democracy for many years. If they have any more democracy, there may not be anyone left alive to enjoy it.

Perhaps if we lived in an ideal world, democracy may be the answer in all cases. Where the system is maintained and applied forever. We don’t.

An answer is rather to look at like-minded allies rather than prescribing your system as the must have for everyone. If a country subscribes, in principle, to a set of policies that are, in the main, consistent with yours, then therein may lie the solution.

As opposed to, “We’re democratising the world and we’ll kill every man, woman and child to do it, if we have to.”

As Barack Obama says in his essay on American foreign policy, the time has come to build partnerships. To sell ideas rather than bully people into policies taken in isolation.

South Africa is a wonderful democracy underpinned by a superb Constitution. It will bear great fruit for its people. This does not mean we have to force it on every country with which we want to do business.

Remember, sometimes you have to deal with unwelcome, malicious, patronising … but enough about my bank manager.

Pragmatism or idealism? Your call.