Where is Democracy?

It would be easy to see the current crisis in the middle East as a break-out of war between democracy and fundamentalist Islamic forces. But, it would also be wrong to see it this way. It needs to be remembered that the current leaders of America and Israel were never authentically elected. In the case of Bush, his first election was a fraudulent one, in which democratic votes from black people were systematically destroyed. Also, there is a certain amount of evidence from his verbal mistakes and lengthly public absences that we are dealing with an alcoholic (the excuse that he is merely stupid is pretty unrealistic- no-one merely stupid could survive as long in politics as he has). His second election was secured only by the events of 9/11, which fellow right-wingers could well have been responsible for allowing to happen, if not even helping to happen- which is another manipulation of the democratic process.

Meanwhile, in Israel, we had the situation in which Ariel Sharon had the unpopular idea of unilateral disengagement from The Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon. Unpopular in Israel with his own elected party and their allies who were not prepared to leave such areas at that point, and unpopular with the world, which was urging the negotiations. So he formed a new political party to support these ideas and overcome his coalition's objections and simply forced the policy.

Now whilst it was good to withdraw from unnecessary entanglements for Israel, anything that gives the impression of retreat rather than of moral choice could well strengthen the fanatical enemies that lurk in the area, and we can see this in the assention of Hamas and Hezbollah to actually winning certain elections, if only as a protest vote. They didn't win just because of their militancy, but because of their impression of being freer from corruption than the alternatives to them, such as the Palestinian authority and their involvement in social programs in deprived neighbourhoods. Whilst this may have been more to do with encouraging support than a sincere regard for human well-being, it has built up their popularity in neglected areas, with people who were left with the feeling that no-one else really cared about them. This desperation makes such populations ripe for exploitation of the very worst kind, they need people who sincerely want to help them, not to use them as 'human shields'. Still, as terrorist groups, their election is widely regarded as illegitimate- election or no election, they in no way represent democracy itself, with it's implicit assertion of the rights of minorities and the duty to coexist with those who differ from ourselves.

From stress or simply age, Sharon quite recently succumbed to a coma, leaving in charge the inexperienced and unelected Olmert- an acting Prime Minister, though an unelected one. Like George Bush junior, he looks up to an older, more experienced and more respected leader. This leaves him to want to shore up his position and authority not only with those inside the country, but also in the eyes of external adversaries who are always on the lookout for weakness. He also seeks to use military power as a means to resolve a situation that requires long-term diplomatic commitments that can appear fruitless at first glance. Many have commented that it was unnecessary to use full-blown military power in Iraq at specifically the time of the invasion there- and have been more or less vindicated by the endless guerrilla entanglements that have followed it. Similarly, whilst it was certainly a great temptation to try to use the high-tech army to respond to the provocation when Hezboullah attacked and kidnapped soldiers from an Israeli patrol, we need to remember the need to be carful on this point and remember the nature of 'asymetrical warfare' that uses low-tech weapons and treats local populations as if they were the notorious 'human shields' by hiding amongst them.

The historical resistance of guerrilla fighters to even far more technologically proficient armies means that they should only be encountered when victory is virtually assured and there is wide support for such a risky and costly venture. Guerillas can marshall support even in the face of very wide-spread attacks and have ways to make themselves look like the victim- only by making it clearly morally reprehensible to support them can their lines of support- those of the local population, whoever their real backers may be- be effectively broken. If they are to be defeated, they can never seem to have the moral high-ground. Of course, they can also be politically eroded from within, as should have happened in Lebanon long before, as the central government took over and rebuilt the country.

Basically we have a situation in which two leaders whose democratic credentials are very much in doubt turning to military force as a way of imposing security and democratic norms on an admittedly lawless region. They claim to have liberal aspirations, but are using techniques that would make even the right-wing blush and especially in Bush's case have caused terrible damage to the lives of civilians and the stability of society in the affected region. It seems to be to be a very unfortunate, even tragic misuse of force (especially in the case of Iraq), which leaves me wondering why it should happen, although there may be some reasons known to intelligence sources that make it all neccessary, as part of a grand strategy, but it seems like an inflamation of the disease more than a cure. This doesn' seem to be a case of Western democracy fighting radical Islam, however reprehensible extremist Islam is. It is something else.... I'm not sure what, exactly, but something else...

Which leaves me apprehensive that more rough beasts await to be born..