Democracy Delayed?

March 10, 2005

by Robert Nolan

This week, U.S. President George Bush proclaimed in a speech to National Defense University that “the trumpet of freedom has been sounded” in the Middle East, and “the trumpet never calls retreat.” While this may or may not be true, those who warned of the many obstacles facing the birth of democracy in the region, particularly in Lebanon, have been at least temporarily vindicated, as Beirut-based Hezbollah rallied nearly half a million pro-Syrian demonstrators into the streets with more rallies planned for the weekend. The heavy response has bolstered the return of ousted pro-Syrian Prime Minister Omar Karami to his previous position, and indicates that despite the resounding metaphors and lofty rhetoric, the real battle for hearts and minds in the Middle East is only beginning.

The Power of Hezbollah

Just as President Bush relayed support to the Lebanese people, stating that “the world is witnessing your great movement of conscience,” more than 500,000 pro-Syrian demonstrators flooded the streets of Beirut in rallies The Economist called a “counter-revolution.”

According to the Washington Post, the showdown in the streets represents a new kind of conflict in the region. “The old forces of the Middle East -- founded on autocracy, Islamic extremism and terrorism,” it says in an editorial, “are facing off in Lebanon against its brand-new one, based on liberal values and peaceful ‘people power.'”

Led by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, speakers refused to bow to international pressure that Syria adhere to a United Nations resolution calling for the full withdrawal of all Syrian forces and armed militias -- including the military wing of Hezbollah – a group the U.S. has labeled a terrorist organization, from Lebanon.

“You came to this rally to rebuff the attempts of the Americans and other foreign powers to impose their mandate on our country,” said Nasrallah, according to Lebanon's Daily Star. Nasrallah also said a Syrian withdrawal could come only through the so-called Taif National Reconciliation Accord, a 1989 agreement that weighs heavily in favor of a strong Syrian presence in Lebanon.

Almost immediately, former pro-Syrian Prime Minister Omar Karami, who resigned just 10 days earlier following anti-Syrian demonstrations and resounding international pressure, returned to his position emboldened by the demonstrations. “It was a massive demonstration that asserted our legitimacy in the Lebanese street” said Karami in his turn to use public sentiment as a mandate, vowing to create a national unity government inclusive of the opposition or “bow out” once again.

U.S. rhetoric put to the test

For the U.S., the week's events present a unique challenge. While the “democratic doctrine” espoused by the Bush administration works well in dealing with autocratic regimes it dislikes, making complicated Lebanon an example for democratic change in the region could easily backfire. Critics have already pounced on the U.S. policy, attacking what University of Michigan professor Juan Cole says is the “simplistic master narrative” that “anti-Syrian demonstrations were interpreted as a yearning for democracy inspired by the Iraqi elections.” According to Cole, connecting regional events in such a way represents a “gross misunderstanding of the situation in the Middle East,” noting that “the idea that the urbane and sophisticated Beirutis had anything to learn from the Jan. 30 process in Iraq is absurd on the face of it.”

James Zogby, President of the Washington-based Arab American Institute also question's the Bush administration's interpretation of recent events in Lebanon. “I'm not sure freedom is on the march – people are on the march” he told the Dallas Morning News.

Others are even more suspicous of the heighteed pitch of American rhetoric on democracy in the Middle East. “Nothing will stand in the way of the American spin, which connects events of differing backgrounds and unique circumstances into a thrilling epic of a "freedom intifada" that is spreading all over the Arab world,” writes Mernon Benvenisti in Israel's Haaretz. “The desperate American need to justify the Iraqi war after the fact is causing them and their supporters to inflate every event and to lend it a significance that goes beyond the local, limited context, which usually stems not from lofty principles, but from the interests of local tyrants who want to strengthen their position.”

Indeed, a Washington Post editorial notes the conspicuously selective process in which the U.S. chooses to admonish Middle East autocrats as part of its push for democracy. “Once again Mr. Bush risks appearing to press for democratic change only where it is convenient for the United States, while issuing a pass to nominal allies,” writes the Post. “But if the incipient democratic movement in the Middle East is to gain traction, the United States must press for change where it matters most -- as in Egypt -- and not just where it is easiest.”

Caution and compromise

While the direction democratic developments could take in the Middle East has many pundits puzzled, those with long-time experience in the region urge caution and compromise, especially in Lebanon. Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland writes that events in Lebanon should be met with optimistic caution. Right now is a moment “to keep expectations from racing too far ahead of Lebanon's complex reality and the differing views its troubles still provoke from outside powers, principally France and the United States,” Hoagland writes, adding that “The best way to aid Lebanon's rebirth as a nation is to keep the focus on the intricate set of political negotiations over power-sharing that the Lebanese themselves must initiate, manage and make succeed once the Syrian boot is off their neck.”

While the U.S. is unlikely to welcome anything less than a full Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, internal negotiations might bypass American hopes, as indicated by the return of Prime Minister Karami. “The difficulties we all know cannot be confronted without a government of national unity and salvation," Karami said, according to a Washington Post report. "We will extend our hand and wait for the other side."

Indeed, The Economist writes that the “pro-and anti-Syrian camps are less polarized than they may appear,” and that an internal compromise may be reached sooner than many think. “Perhaps what Lebanon needs is a formula that allows it to retain its Arabism while being part of that dreaded American project,” writes the news weekly. Such a formula, if successful, could serve as part of a wider, less politicized elixir for the conflicted region.

Print This Article