US and democracy

When the Bush administration announced its promotion of democracy in the Greater Middle East project, its primary aim, of course, was to justify the Iraq adventure. The truth of the matter is that there is an inherent contradiction in what Washington perceives as its national interest and the promotion of democracy in the Middle East as well as countries like Pakistan.
Being a status quo power, the US does not wish to see Middle Eastern dictatorships and monarchies fall. Which makes things difficult for State Department officials trying to justify US policy vis-a-vis the spread of democracy. Richard Boucher, US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, had to face precisely this situation when he came calling in Islamabad recently.
As it is, the US government has a cozy relationship with President General Pervez Musharraf, and in fact some prominent American officials and opinion leaders have openly been saying that they need him to stay in power. But as his titles show, he holds both the top civilian and military jobs, while the political opposition in this country is pushing him to doff his military uniform and hold fair and free elections to pave the way for civilian rule. When confronted with a question at a news conference on the issue, Boucher said that the Bush administration strongly favoured civilian rule and a civilian control over the military in Pakistan. Of course, he could not say publicly that Washington was happy to have a General ruling Pakistan. Hence, he remained evasive on the question whether the US would accept it if even after the upcoming elections President Musharraf continued to wear the hats of President and COAS both. If, as he claimed, the Bush administration truly believes that Pakistan should have civilian rule, he should have had no hesitation in giving a straight answer. Yet during the course of his news conference, Boucher repeatedly emphasised the need for free and fair elections, and said the overall process of democracy in the country is a very important and clear goal for the US. Overall Translation: it is important to have a façade of democracy.
During his stay in Islamabad Boucher also met with the ARD leaders Amin Fahim and Raja Zafarul Haq, who also represent the two mainstream opposition parties, the PPP and the PML-N. Giving him their perspective on the political situation, they said their parties might boycott the next elections if the former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were barred from participating in them. Fahim later told the press that ARD did not seek US intervention regarding the issue nor did Boucher offer such help.
Apparently, the objective in raising the issue with him was to show that the elections sans the leadership of the two mainstream parties would not have much credibility. That however, is not a top priority issue for the US; it wants elections to be held on time, by way of fulfilling a formality rather than to let the people have their say.
When people are given a chance to exercise their democratic right to vote, the outcome is not always to the liking of Washington. For instance, the Palestinians have just recently had Hamas declared a terrorist organisation by the US and the EU. And when Egypt's long-time dictator Hosni Mubarak eased things a little bit for the opposition participation in the recent elections, an extremist religious party, Akhwan ul Muslimeen, made an impressive showing.
Most Arab countries are ruled by hereditary pro-American monarchs or autocrats who do little for the uplift of their people or to counter Israel's relentless aggression against the Palestinian people, creating a general Arab sense of humiliation.
As these rulers have systematically weakened liberal/progressive elements, the only groups/parties that give a voice to the feelings of the common Arab people have radical agendas. The success of Hamas and Akhwan has more to do with the inability of the Arab regimes to deliver on public expectations than the resurgence of fundamentalist ideology.
The case of Pakistan is completely different. Whenever elections have been held in this country, the religious parties have never won much public support. The best they have ever done was during the last elections, which some attribute to the intervention of the 'hidden hand', and also is believed to be a fallout of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan which affected many families in NWFP and Balochistan. Even so, the PPP emerged as the largest single party in the National Assembly, but the powers-that-be decided to hand the position of the Leader of the Opposition to the MMA.
There is a growing concern in this country that if the government continues to follow the policy it did during the recent years of pushing the mainstream parties to the sidelines, the political space thus vacated will be occupied by extremist elements.
A boycott of the elections by the PPP and the PML(N) may again provide such space to the forces of obscurantism. The policy may serve certain purposes of the establishment but it surely is not going to strengthen democracy in this country. Unfettered democracy in Pakistan is not only what the people of this country need and desire, it would also benefit all those countries, including the US, which want to see Pakistan rise as a stable and progressive state.