Leadership needs credibility

Democracy and leadership are often misunderstood. Democracy is often equated with its procedures (separation of powers, regular elections, and pluralism); leadership is often confused with false synonyms: power, rule, or even management. True democracy and real leadership, however, are more complex, yet they share one simple characteristic: They are both about the people.

President Bush's recent commitment to help bring democracy to the people of the Middle East, if genuine, would be a real act of leadership. But leadership requires credibility.

Measured against the Arab people's feelings of American double standards in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it will be difficult to convince the people of the Middle East that Bush really cares about them. Viewed in the context of the 500,000 deaths and the suffering the Iraqi people endured as a result of US and UK-supported sanctions, the Iraqi people might be excused for not believing Bush's concern for their welfare.

Security of the empire

Given Bush's strategy of use of force in a global war against terrorism that took American troops to Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, the Philippines, and, Iraq, one might be tempted to believe that Bush cares more about the security of the empire than about the freedom of the Arab people.

Yet, if we put all these reservations aside and take Bush at his word, we are still left with nagging questions about his understanding of the concept of democracy. Bush's stated aim in Iraq now is to make it "a free and democratic society" that will be a model for the rest of the Middle East.

He compared today's opportunity in the Middle East to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. But the fall of the Berlin Wall dramatically illustrates the link between people and democracy, not between occupation and democracy.

Civil society associations and human rights activists led the democratic revolutions in Eastern and Central Europe. KOR (Committee for Workers' Defence) in Poland; Szeta in Hungary, the Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, and the Neues Forum in East Germany.

The agenda of the people's demands fuelled the democratic revolutions in these countries: Freedom of association in Poland, human rights in Czechoslovakia, peace in Eastern Germany, Rehabilitation of democratic legacy in Hungary, and environmental protection in Bulgaria and the Baltic nations.

The difference between these people-led democratic movements and the foreign-imposed democratic regimes after the end of World War I in the same region is instructive. The first democratic experience in the region was about establishing democratic regimes on the rubble of collapsed empires; the second was about empowering the people.

The first failed because the rulers failed to lead, the second succeeded because the people were empowered to lead. When popular sovereignty resided in the people, their governments become the expression of their will. No, Iraq is not Berlin. Democracy can be built only by the Iraqi people because democratic society is fundamentally and necessarily a participatory society. This, as the experience of Western democracies illustrate, is a long term project.

However, this does not seem to be the priority of Bush. His administration seems anxious to extricate itself from the Iraqi quagmire as soon as possible. The US death toll in Iraq has now surpassed the number of American soldiers killed during the first three years of the Vietnam War.

Moreover, a recent CIA report now estimates the insurgents' strength at 50,000, much more than what the Pentagon would like to believe. An intelligence source in Washington described the CIA report as a "bleak assessment that the resistance is broad, strong and getting stronger".

The administration has promised to transfer power to an Iraqi government by June 2004, but the real influence will remain with the American architects of the war.

"We'll have more levers than you think, and maybe more than the Iraqis think," on administration official told the New York Times last week.

Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish leader who is this month's president of Iraq's interim governing council, understands the current balance of power in Iraq. He assured his American backers that after the transfer of power the American military forces would remain in Iraq "as invited guests."

Bush has a historic opportunity to perform an act of leadership. He could rise to the challenge, or he could continue his imperial politics as usual.

Bush could commit his country to truly support the establishment of democratic institutions and civil society in Iraq. He could pledge to accept whatever government the people elect in Iraq, without expecting anything in return except the long term benefits that will accrue to the people of the region, and ultimately to the image and standing of America in the world.

Real power

Or, Bush could transfer the mechanism of governance but retain real power in the form of American military presence, concessions for corporate America, and an acquiescent Iraqi attitude in Israeli hegemony in the region. Option one would be an act of leadership, option two would be realpolitik. Given the record, Bush is likely to prefer politics over leadership.

In a recent Bushspeak, Bush himself explained his understanding of democracy thus: "That's just the nature of democracy. Sometimes pure politics enters into the rhetoric."

Professor Safty is Dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at UAE University. He is author or editor of 14 books, including, "From Camp David to the Gulf", and the forthcoming "Leadership and Democracy" (IPSL Press, New York, 2004). He may be reached at asafty@gulfnews.com