Reform, another casualty of Iraq

By David M. DeBartolo

Today Americans go to the polls to elect all their congressional representatives and one-third of their senators. Because Republicans are projected to do poorly in an election widely seen as a referendum on Iraq, the results will likely spur the administration’s pursuit of stability and moderation at the expense of democracy in the Middle East.

According to the latest pre-election polls, Democrats appear poised to win the House of Representatives. There is even a narrow chance that they will take control of the Senate. But the election is more a Republican disaster than a Democratic victory; several prominent Republican politicians have been tainted by personal and political scandals, giving Democrats easy targets and disheartening the Republican base.

More importantly, the election comes as Americans increasingly question the Bush administration’s decisions about the Iraq war. The conflict looms like a dark cloud over the election; neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have innovative or promising ideas of how to end it. But because the Republicans currently control the presidency and Congress, most blame has fallen on them; it has been easy for the Democrats to run against the Bush administration’s conduct of the war without presenting a persuasive alternative.

Democrats have vague and fragmented views on Iraq, which is no surprise, considering that the official Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee does not even list any foreign policy items on its “Democratic Agenda”.

If Americans choose a Democratic Congress today, they will be voting more against the Bush administration and the war in Iraq than they will be voting for the Democrats. If the Democrats win the House, or even the Senate, they will have no mandate to pursue a bold agenda; they will merely have permission to obstruct the administration.

As a result, a strong Democratic showing will intensify the pressure on President George Bush to change direction in Iraq. The administration has already abandoned the expression “stay the course”, and there has been widespread speculation that a top-level commission reassessing America’s Iraq strategy will recommend major changes, among them working more closely with Iraq’s neighbours (including Syria and Iran) to quell the violence.

Such a strategic shift, ironically, would make the administration’s interest in political reform another casualty of the Iraq war.

During past trips to the region, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed unprecedented American support for steps towards democracy. At the American University of Cairo last year, Rice discussed America’s historic support for stability in the Middle East at the expense of democracy, and declared that America had changed course to support “the democratic aspirations of all people”. She praised Egypt’s multiparty presidential elections, expressed support for an independent judiciary, and called for the repeal of Egypt’s emergency law. In practice, the administration supported democratic reform only sporadically, but it did take some meaningful steps: vigorously protesting Ayman Nour’s imprisonment, delaying a free trade agreement, and postponing one of Rice’s official visits to the region.

But during her trip to the Middle East last month, Rice said little about reform or democracy; she instead stressed support for “moderate forces”. In an effort to extricate itself from the grim situation in Iraq, the administration appears willing to sacrifice long-term political reform for short-term stability and moderation.

It remains to be seen whether the US will actually act to empower moderates like King Abdullah, who has called repeatedly for renewing the Arab-Israeli peace process.

The Bush administration will be spending most of its political capital seeking an exit strategy from Iraq, leaving little room for engagement on Arab-Israeli issues. Bush has always been leery of heavy American involvement in the peace process, remembering the failed negotiations at the end of Bill Clinton’s tenure.

America will not back away from the rhetoric of reform entirely; such talk has been far too prominent over the last three years to be completely abandoned. But stabilising and ultimately leaving Iraq is the administration’s top Middle East priority now, and efforts in other areas — whether democracy or the peace process — are likely to take a back seat.

Over the next two years, Middle Easterners who want America to reexamine and reconceptualise how it supports political reform — for instance, by replacing the failed “Iraq model” with peaceful, cooperative approaches — should pay close attention to the debates taking place within the Democratic and Republican parties. Both are having vibrant internal discussions about whether democracy, stability, human rights or other values should guide the next president’s policy.

The writer, a Fulbright researcher in Amman, is the chair of the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED), an American non-profit organisation dedicated to examining how American policy can better support genuine and authentic democracy in the Middle East. He contributed this article to The Jordan Times.

Tuesday, November 7, 2006