Certain Middle-East countries such as Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, have begun to experience the seeds of democracy.
The political climate following the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has brought an unprecedented display of political activism, as shown by the massive public demonstrations, the successful withdrawal of Syrian troops and the achievement of free elections. In Egypt the People's Assembly approved an amendment to the Constitution allowing multi-candidate elections to the presidency. In Saudi Arabia elections were held from February to April 2005 for half of the seats on municipal councils, the remaining half being appointed by the government. Women were excluded from both voting and candidacy. Partial though this first exercise of democracy has been, it nevertheless represents a significant sign of change in the Saudi Arabian political scene.
If we then add the presidential elections in the Palestinian territories and, in spite of the climate of civil war, the parliamentary elections in Iraq we can conclude that all these events testify the will of the peoples of the region to take their destiny into their own hands. Although these moves need confirmation, they do seem to point to a new and welcome trend toward democracy in the Middle-East.
The idea that democracy is a luxury for the wealthy is an old-fashioned viewpoint and not in tune with prevailing tendencies in the contemporary world. First of all, there is the case of India, a fifty years old, deeply rooted democracy in a developing country. The success of democracy in other Asian countries such as Japan immediately after WW II and, more recently, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and Indonesia, show that democracy is not incompatible with Asian values, as Huntington's theory of the clash of civilizations wrongly maintains. The case of Indonesia is extraordinarily interesting, because it shows how the world's biggest Islamic country has adopted a democratic political structure. Turkey is now no longer the only exception to a 'rule' which was supposed to prove that Islamism presents an insuperable obstacle to democracy.
Is the springtime of democracy evidence of the success of the Bush doctrine of bringing democracy to the Middle-East? In small part only. Military occupation cannot significantly reshape the fundamental social and economic structures needed to enhance the likelihood of a successful democratic transition in Iraq or in Afghanistan. The real impediments to democracy lie not simply in economic inequalities, but also in social inequalities in, for example, education and health care. Furthermore, the frequency with which we see weak or failed states plagued by corruption and violence suggests that the rule of law is an indispensable requirement for democracy. As regards Iraq, the deep ethnic and religious cleavages among Shiites, Sunnites and Kurds present another serious obstacle to democracy. Each group is divided between fundamentalists and secularists as well as along class, tribal and regional lines. Lastly, it must be taken into account that Iraq has no experience in democracy, unlike Germany, Italy and Japan which experimented with democracy at the beginning of the last century and, in the post-war period, received a decisive help from the US in restoring of democracy.
Of course, the factors which might either enhance or possibly reduce the likelihood of a successful transition to democracy are not independent of the international context. In this connection, we have to ask ourselves whether the US intervention in Iraq which allowed the elections to take place has truly paved the way to democracy and generally improved the overall situation in the Middle-East.
One of the consequences of the Iraqi war not foreseen by the US government has been the growth of terrorism, which did not exist during the Saddam Hussein era, but has now taken root, and the strengthening of fundamentalism in the country. A real movement toward democracy is clearly impossible in a society suffering from daily terrorist attacks. The tragedy of overwhelming American military superiority lies in the fact that, although the US can win wars, it is unable to rebuild the states it has defeated.
This observation leads to a further reflection. The US is waging an open war against international courts, since it is not willing to recognize any international jurisdiction. Its refusal to recognize the pre-eminence of the rule of law contradicts the liberal spirit of a power whose ambition is to play a role in the promotion of democracy abroad.
The EU also wants to increase the number of democracies in the world. Lacking a powerful military apparatus, it aims primarily at promoting democracy in its neighbouring countries.
EU enlargement has been an extraordinary success and proves the effectiveness of an innovative form of foreign policy. The so-called Copenhagen criteria setting out the conditions which candidate countries have to meet ? respecting the principles of democracy, the rule of law and a market economy ? have given a powerful impulse for political and economic change, first in Southern Europe where three fascist regimes (Greece, Spain and Portugal) survived until the 1970s, and then in Central and Eastern Europe. It is no exaggeration to say that the attractive force of the EU made a decisive contribution to bringing about the end of those hateful regimes.
The process has not ended yet. Bulgaria and Romania are supposed to enter the EU in 2007. Negotiations with Turkey will start in the near future, and the mere expectation of accession to the EU has already produced deep changes in its laws and institutions, such as the abolition of the death penalty, the recognition of the rights of the Kurd minority, and the elimination of the political privileges of the army. On the horizon we can discern the prospect of the pacification and democratisation of the Balkans. This is the way to bury the horrors of civil war. The entry of Slovenia in the EU in 2004 was the first step in this direction.
Democratic changes can only succeed and endure within a framework of security linked to a prospect of development. Both these elements can be brought to the Middle-East by a process of regional integration. This is lacking in the American plan for a Greater Middle-East. The EU could promote such a regional integration process, starting with a peace-keeping intervention by European security forces to assure peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine. This could create a climate of détente in the Middle-East and foster international co-operation in the region. Moreover, a development plan is needed, similar to the Marshall Plan which promoted European integration after WW II, whose task would be to stimulate the economic integration in the region and contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq.
Broadly speaking, the EU is now a big market without a political head. This is the idea of Europe the UK supports. For this reason, the UK has chosen to stay out of the euro area. The rejection of the Constitution by the French and Dutch citizens shows how a divided and powerless EU, able neither to stimulate economic growth nor to speak with one voice at international level, is losing the support of the citizens and opening the way to the return of nationalism and fear of the future. The voters' "No" to their leaders unmasks the ambiguity of all those, and in particular Mr Chirac, who claim to be independent of the US, but are unwilling to transfer foreign and security policy powers to the EU.