Iraq Aff Wave 1

Democratic transitions fail – backsliding proves

Thomas Carothers (Director of the Democracy and Rule of Law Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) 1997 Foreign Affairs, January/February

At the enthusiasm's height, Western observers proclaimed every country attempting a political opening, no matter how partial, "in transition to democracy." Stagnation and retrenchment have brought them back to earth. Above all, the backsliding makes clear how difficult democracy is to achieve. The leading cause in many instances is as straightforward as it is inescapable: elites are able to reconsolidate their rule after a political opening because of the political and economic resources they command and the weakness of fledgling opposition forces.

Demo Promo Fails – Middle East

Low US credibility and regional conflict make Middle Eastern Democracy impossible—even if they win a small risk that the plan promotes democracy, regional political limitations mitigate its impact.

Marina Ottaway, Ph.D., Columbia University. “Middle East Democracy Promotion Is Not a One-way Street.” November 2009. http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=24200
President Obama is under pressure to relaunch the political reform agenda in the Middle East, but low U.S. credibility and the region’s political stagnation leave little hope that typical methods will be successful. The last time a U.S. administration faced a similar situation with such unfavorable circumstances for advancing political reform was over 30 years ago during the height of the Cold War. To have a chance at impacting political reform in the Middle East under the present circumstances, the Obama administration should open a dialogue with governments in the region, modeled on the Helsinki process that was used to improve relations with the Soviet bloc. The United States must be willing to discuss the universal principles that should underlie its own Middle East policy if they want to engage Arab countries in a discussion of the principles they should respect. If the Obama administration wants to embark on a new policy of promoting political reform, it must understand certain realities: Incumbent regimes are more firmly entrenched than ever. Increasingly low election turnout signals rising disenchantment with political processes and organizations. Arab states are unable to govern effectively. Rather than tackling the serious underlying problems, they choose patronage and populist gestures to win support. The fallback solution of democracy promotion, supporting civil society and political parties, will have little impact in countries that have systemically limited the political space for these groups.
 

US Middle Eastern democracy promotion fails—low human rights credibility and failure in Iraq.

Thomas Carothers, Vice President for Studies, Carnegie Endowment. “Carnegie Endowment for International Peace U.S. Democracy Promotion

Under Obama.” March 3, 2009. http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/0303_transcript_democracy_promotion_obama.pdf

First, President Bush caused democracy promotion to be closely associated with the Iraq intervention, and more generally with forcible regime change. This, as you know, tremendously damaged the legitimacy of democracy promotion, causing it to be seen in many quarters in the world as a hypocritical cover for aggressive American interventionism. It caused a majority of Americans to believe that democracy promotion should not be a priority of U.S. foreign policy. It caused many people in Europe and other fellow democracies to be wary about associating themselves with American democracy promotion and with the goal itself. It caused many people in the Middle East in the Muslim world to reject the American message of democracy promotion, even when their own political instincts were pro-democratic. And it facilitated the ability of authoritarian and semiauthoritarian governments around the world to publicly resist Western democracy promotion and to sell this resistance to their publics as necessary defense against foreign hegemonic intervention. Second, some of the Bush administration’s actions in the war on terrorism – above all the legal abuses and violations of rights against prisoners and detainees – badly hurt America’s standing as a global symbol of democracy. And the Bush administration’s terrible example also encouraged other governments to take repressive measures during their own counterterrorism campaigns and help them laugh off any U.S. pressure for better performance on rights and democracy. Now, as I said before, these damaging elements of the Bush legacy on democracy promotion are well known. Alongside them, however, are several other elements of the Bush legacy that also weigh on the new administration that I think are less well understood and constitute misconceptions, but they’re misconceptions that have the potential to lead the Obama team astray. One of these misconceptions is the idea that the United States has been overdoing elections around the world and that the United States has been equating elections with democracy, and that elections are very dangerous – dangerous because in some cases they produce political extremists or antidemocratic populists, or dangerous because they may result in civil conflict.

Demo Promo Fails – Middle East

Middle East democracy empirically fails—any democratic establishment will not endure in the long term.

Matthew RJ Brodsky, the Director of Policy for the Jewish Policy Center (JPC), the Editor of the JPC's journal, in FOCUS Quarterly, and former member of the Global Diplomacy Initiative in Israel and Editorial Assistant for Haaretz. “Democracy: America's Failed Export.” “06/04/2008. http://www.middleeastopinion.com/history-&-policy/node/164

At the end of World War II in 1945, there were roughly 20 democracies in the world. Today there are around 120. There can be no doubt that democracy has been spreading and hopefully the trend will continue. America has the right idea when it strives to bring democracy to the Middle East with the rationale being that free and fair elections and public participation with accountable leaders will make the region less likely to raise radical societies. However, the way the U.S. has gone about defining and spreading democracy leaves much to be desired. Hamas's election victory over Fatah is one example of Washington failing to balance our values with our interests. In fact, it is hard to imagine the scenario where Hamas will be ousted from Gaza. Of the myriad of reasons that we are nowhere close to seeing a Palestinian-Israeli peace, the fact that a terrorist group runs Gaza and is pledged to Israel's destruction renders even the Powerball odds of a peace deal impossible. Why even buy the ticket? We must do away with our current definition of democracy where it simply means free and fair elections. It is but one component of a democracy. Without a civil society, state institutions, a strong middle class, concepts of individual liberty, respect for the rule of law, an independent judiciary and other components that have made it a success in the Western world, democracy in the Middle East will remain a long way off. These preconditions do not exist in the Middle East and where they are lacking, radicals win and ensure there is only one free election with no democracy. There are no second elections because the radicals who win see to it that the first free election is also the last. It is one person; one vote; one time. The U.S. pressed for elections in the Palestinian Authority without demanding that Hamas disarm. This was a tragic mistake. In the 1990s, Hizballah in Lebanon began to realize that not only could they shape events with their guns and bombs, but they could also do it with votes inside of parliament. They decided to run in the elections and have been making gains ever since. All the while, they have kept their guns and are currently far stronger than the Lebanese army. U.S. policy should insist that groups who wish to run in elections must choose between bullets or ballots at a bare minimum. It has taken the Bush administration too long to realize that American-style democracy cannot be exported to the Middle East. America's brand identity has taken a hit in the Middle East and a package of democracy stamped with "Made in the USA" will send masses running. It must be planted locally, watered regionally, and nurtured internationally. Middle East democracy should be built upon existing institutions and meet the above preconditions otherwise elections merely shuffle the leadership deck without establishing durable democratic behavior. That is why elections should come at the end of the process; not at the beginning. It is too early to tell whether the democracy strategy in Iraq will endure for the long-run. Much depends on Iran and Syria - which is to say: depend on the undependable. Nevertheless, the U.S. has dropped the ball in the one place local democracy was growing while focusing attention on solving the currently unsolvable