Mideast still hostile to democracy BY ANDREW GREELEY

Mideast still hostile to democracy

February 10, 2006

BY ANDREW GREELEY - Copyright by the Chicago Sun Times

How could anyone have been surprised by the Hamas victory in the Palestinian election? The Palestinians are a people who feel oppressed and aggrieved. They believe their land was taken from them.

Perhaps they shouldn't feel that way but they do. Why would they not vote for a party that advocates the destruction of Israel? All the agreements and "road maps to peace" change very little as far as they are concerned. Peace will never be possible so long as terrorists flourish in Palestine. After more than a half century, that should be obvious. Voting Hamas into power may have been folly, but the folly is real and it's not likely to go away.

How could one be surprised that Iran elected a populist demagogue who threatens to obliterate Israel? Madness, you say? Perhaps, but the militant nationalism of Iran is a madness that isn't likely to go away.

Does anyone seriously believe that with Palestine in the hands of Hamas and threatening sounds from Hamas' sponsors in Iran, nervous Israeli voters won't turn to right-wing extremists in their next election?

Almost certainly Iran is developing nuclear weapons to destroy Israel, as its president suggests. Almost certainly Israel will attempt to strike first. Insanity? Certainly, but that does not mean it will go away.

How could one be surprised about the size of the plurality of the theocratic parties in the Iraq election? The Shiite majority has been oppressed for a long time. Why wouldn't they strive to regain the power they feel was theirs by right? Does anyone think that if the Saudi royal family should be so imprudent as to permit a real election in the country that produced most of the World Trade Center terrorists, the radical Islamists would not win?

The point of these dire observations is that President Bush's madcap policy of promoting "democracy" in the Middle East is folly. Democracy means to him "free" elections and majority rule. But majority rule often means the tyranny of the majority. A man or a party wins a majority or even a large plurality (as did Hitler) in an election, and that is the last election there will be for a long time.

Other conditions have to prevail for majority rule to serve the cause of what we in America would consider democracy. There must first of all be respect for the minority that lost the election: for its right to exist, its right to oppose, its right to criticize. Then there must be concern about the rule of law that survives majority rule, which means an independent judiciary. There must be clearly stated rights and liberties that the majority cannot abrogate.

Not all countries are capable yet of the civic culture that these conditions create. Most European countries are, but some of them achieved such a climate for democracy only recently, and only imperfectly.

In Russia, for example, the most troubling question is whether Vladimir Putin will step down after his second term. Majority rule often is the first step to tyranny.

The Middle East will have to muddle along without democracy for the foreseeable future. Tyrannies of one sort or another -- either of the leader or the majority party -- will continue to be the only possible form of government, except in Israel, Turkey and perhaps Lebanon.

How could Bush believe otherwise -- unless spreading the democratic faith around the world is a useful electoral slogan in this country, many of whose citizens believe majority rule in elections means that everything has been settled. For that reason, did not James Madison and Co. create a system of checks and balances in the Constitution? The Founding Fathers feared the power of an uncontrolled majority.

It's worth nothing that the current majority of about 1 or 2 percent has begun to dissolve the American civic culture. Citizens can be held indefinitely without trial. Their phone lines and e-mail can be invaded. Torture is tolerated. The filibuster restraint is in jeopardy. Minorities within the majority can dictate Supreme Court appointments. The Congress is dominated by ideological polarization. The executive claims the privilege to ignore congressional requests for information. One party seeks in its K Street project control of all lobbying.

Our civic culture is not as weak as Palestine, or Saudi Arabia, or even Russia. But it is beginning to fray around the edges.