COMMENTARY: Short cuts in democracy often lead nowhere
|
|
|
By Kari Huhta
First the elections are praised, and then the result is denounced. It has been difficult, in a broad sense, to take a stand on the Parliamentary elections in the Palestinian Territory, and it has been especially difficult in the United States.
President George W. Bush was cautious in his condemnation of the winner, Hamas, because he had to avoid condemning the Palestinian voters. If he had done so, he would have found fault with democracy, and that is something that he cannot do. The pacification of the Middle East through democracy has been one of the main American justifications for the war in Iraq.
In addition, just over a week ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the main task of the US diplomatic machine is to be, specifically, that of bringing democracy to all parts of the world. The name of this new policy is "transitional diplomacy".
This is a new kind of diplomacy. The first diplomats were children of ruling families, who served as guarantors of peace: that is, on the practical level, they were hostages in the neighbouring country. Later, diplomacy became a way for countries to stay in contact with one another. Previously it was not a way to spread the influence of one country into other countries - at least not openly.
In defending their actions, US conservative idealists say that they are not exporting US influence, but rather democracy, which both makes the world a better place, and secures the interests of the United States.
The goal is not a bad one. Having moderate and responsible democracies around the world would also protect Finnish interests. However, critics warned already before the Palestinian elections that moderation and enlightenment are not automatically a part of the package, and that there is much more to democracy than just holding elections.
According to Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. Bush has tried to remake the world with a few bold strokes. However, the building of democracy requires time, institutions, and details. There is no short cut.
When there are no democratic structures, or a civic society, then you get something pointing vaguely in that direction. In Iraq and the Palestinian territories, the civic organisations that are being formed are different from those in Finland, at least for now. The Palestinians perhaps were voting more for the civic organisation Hamas than for the terrorist organisation Hamas.
Simple short-sightedness is not the only problem of the US democracy campaign. Promotion of democracy is being attempted in an international atmosphere heightened by wars, crises, and disagreements. It is reflected in the election results.
Tension flows into the international atmosphere especially from the Middle East, both from the war in Iraq, and the long-term crisis between Israel and the Palestinians.
The Palestinian elections were supposed to help break the cycle. Reconciliation between the Palestinians and the Israelis would certainly promote moderation and democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere. If the election result deepens the cycle of tension, the result will be the opposite.
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 28.1.2006
KARI HUHTA / Helsingin Sanomat
kari.huhta@hs.fi
|
| 31.1.2006 - THIS WEEK |
 COMMENTARY: Short cuts in democracy often lead nowhere |
|
