Democracy in the Middle East

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 In the latter, there is a precariously balanced (pro-Western) government from which the largest minority has withdrawn.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.

Christmas

Once again this year there is debate about how 'do-gooders' are eroding the spirit of Christmas by banning any reference to religion or the religious character of Christmas. The Telegraph reading- and writing- types who are up in arms are quite right. They are also generous enough to realise that it is not the potential recipients of 'do-goodery', the minorities, who are demanding the removal of any reference to Christmas. Quite the contrary- minorities are conscious that these ridiculous gestures only embolden the far right.

A bigger debate needs to be had about the commercialisation of Christmas. Even in the absence of 'do-goodery', Christmas is losing it's religious and spiritual character to the forces of materialism. About this the Telegraph reading and writing types say much less.

Season's greetings!

Iraq

The Iraq Study Group's report, which has dominated the news this week, is an irrelevance. What matters are the ground realities in Iraq and those look irretrievable. Iraq is heading towards disintegration along ethnic and sectarian lines. Much has been made of Iraq's 'democratically elected government'. Even if an election, under the watchful eye of an invading army, can be free and fair, the result hasn't done much to inculcate democratic values and culture. It merely fortified sectarianism.

On another note, Kofi Anan was condemned by some for saying things were now worse than under Saddam. Such visceral condemnation is totally unreasonable. Iraq is an extremely dangerous place to be in. Hundreds of people are being killed every month. There is no law and order. You literally have to worry sick about any family members who need to venture significantly away from home.

Under Saddam, you were not killed while out shopping. You were not killed for turning up to work. There should be no embarrassment in admitting that things were better under Saddam. A corollary of suggesting otherwise is that people living in other tyrannies, whether pro-Western like Saudi, or decidedly anti-Western like Iran, would be better off blowing each other up than they are now. It doesn't make sense.