Do Bush and Blair really want democracy in the Middle East? You would have to be naïve, or more Blairite than Blair, to believe so. In Palestine, democracy delivered Hamas. In various Gulf states, limited exercises in democracy have seen religious parties victorious. Then there is Iraq, meant to be a beacon of democracy that was to shine in the region, it’s powerful rays throwing asunder neighbouring tyrannies and alighting a new phase of freedom. Alas there elections have only accentuated sectarian divisions.
What Bush and Blair really want are compliant tyrannies willing and happy to do the West’s bidding. I have seen no convincing argument against this view. Every word these leaders utter confirms this. How else can you explain the differential treatment of Palestine and Lebanon. In the latter, there is a precariously balanced (pro-Western) government from which the largest minority has withdrawn. In the former, the governing (independent-minded) party won an outright victory barely a year ago. Which of these two is the strongest candidate for a re-election? Blair and Bush’s choice isn’t the one based on what logic and rationality would suggest.
No comments:
Post a Comment