Democracy can be a Shibboleth!

Many of us are lamenting the disasters created by Bush. Now Pakistan is on the verge of implosion and it may not be long before we have a Turkey-Iraq conflict followed (preceded?) by our invasion of Iran! We can only hope that there is some area in the world that will not have felt the horrendous toll of our leader.

The question that has been racing through my brain is the consequences of our leader's vision of extending democracy to as many nations as possible. As he often says, democracy is a "god-given right". I wish that he would prioritize such rights better, e.g., health, education rank higher in my mind (even within the vision of extending democracy since democracy builds on education).

Staying with his vision of extending democracy, we see that Bush and Rice are criticizing Masharraf for stepping back from the path towards democracy. Is democracy that much of a goal that we cannot see the need of further social/legal developments in a nation before democracy can be supported? Our government pushed for a democratic election in the Palestinian Authority only to walk away from the results because they did not meet our expectation. I am not sure that the promotion of democracy at the present time in Pakistan would not end up in a similar way, i.e., election of radical Islamic parties.

H.D.S. Greenway comes to a similar conclusion when examining China. There seems to be a happy state of affairs at the moment between the regime and the people, viz., capitalism is working well and the country is stable. Maybe, at this point in history, this is as good as it can be. Clearly, history seems to indicate that democracy can only build on a society with a certain level of social and legal institutions.

Pakistan does seem to be in a position to support democracy. It surely has a strong legal and judicial system. There is a relatively large middle class. The radical Islamists are strong, but do not enjoy large scale popularity.

In the case of Pakistan, it seems that Bush could live up to his rhetoric about promoting democracy as a "god-given right".

Andrew Bacevich describes the sad status of our international relations in the Los Angeles Times and then proceeds to list five principles to guide our foreign policy. They seem so intelligent and consistent with our general history in foreign affairs that one wonders how so many in our current administration seem to be unaware of these principles.

His five principles are:

* Rather than squandering American power, husband it. As Iraq has shown, U.S. military strength is finite. The nation's economic reserves and diplomatic clout also are limited. They badly need replenishment.

* Align ends with means. Although Bush's penchant for Wilsonian rhetoric may warm the cockles of neoconservative hearts, it raises expectations that cannot be met. Promise only the achievable.

* Let Islam be Islam. The United States possesses neither the capacity nor the wisdom required to liberate the world's 1.4 billion Muslims, who just might entertain their own ideas about what genuine freedom entails. Islam will eventually accommodate itself to the modern world, but Muslims will have to work out the terms.

* Reinvent containment. The process of negotiating that accommodation will produce unwelcome fallout: anger, alienation, scapegoating and violence. In collaboration with its allies, the United States must insulate itself against Islamic radicalism. The imperative is not to wage global war, whether real or metaphorical, but to erect effective defenses, as the West did during the Cold War.

* Exemplify the ideals we profess. Rather than telling others how to live, Americans should devote themselves to repairing their own institutions. Our enfeebled democracy just might offer the place to start.