Though he has picked up the mantra of his predecessor, Obama appears keen to feed the roots of democracy, rather than imposing it and balking at the results, writes El-Sayed Amin Shalabi* An undeniable supporter of freedom, the US hasn't taken an interest in freedom in the Arab world until recently. For decades, the US made convenient alliances with countries known for their tyrannical policies just because they supported it in its conflict with the Soviet Union. After 9/11, things changed as more Americans came to realise that the lack of freedom in certain areas of the world could be detrimental to their own national security. The US changed tack in the Arab world, deciding to push hard for reform and democratisation. And Washington got members of the G8 to sing the praises of democracy, as they did in Sea Island in June 2008. The call for democratisation, however, touched a raw nerve in the Arab world, especially among governments. Arab officials refused to be lectured about freedom, and some harangued the Americans for failing to see through the nuances of Arab politics. Generally, however, accommodating Arab officials promised to democratise, but at their own pace. Any fast move towards reform, they argued, could be unnecessarily disruptive. Hoping to accelerate reforms, the Americans resorted to carrot and stick tactics. They told Cairo at one point that they cannot proceed with a free trade deal unless they see some progress happening. And then they threatened to slash economic assistance if the pace of reform remained too slow. It's hardly surprising for Arab governments to resist change, but the interesting thing is that the public in general was also circumspect. Many thought that the Americans were being pushy to the point of meddling in local affairs. Some at least argued that reform should be home-driven not externally imposed. It so happened that the American push for democracy coincided with a rise of political activism in the Arab world. And the activism was not utterly frowned upon by governments, as is evidenced in a democracy proclamation made at a conference organised by the Bibliotheca Alexandrina in March 2004, then again in 2005. Reform watch groups emerged on the scene, and activists went to conferences from Beirut to Sanaa. Even an Arab summit held in Beirut in 2004 repeated the popular democratisation refrain, calling for broader political participation. The tide was so high that ultra-conservative regimes, from Saudi Arabia to Kuwait, joined in with promises of reform of their own. In Bahrain and Qatar, democracy became a buzzword. The fact that foreign pressure coincided with domestic activism seemed, at least to some, to be too curious a coincidence. And in many parts of the Arab world, writers argued that the foreign drive for democratisation was actually providing a catalyst for activists to speak out, societies to evolve, and governments to accommodate. Then hindrances appeared. One was that when democracy was pushed to its logical conclusions, the Americans balked. In more than one democratic election in the Arab world Islamists seemed to be making gains. And the Americans started to wonder if their policy had been misguided. A process of democratisation that brings anti- American Islamists to power is not, after all, something that Washington is hoping to see. Consequently, the Bush administration lost its appetite for freedom advocacy in the Arab world, thinking perhaps it is better to view democratisation as a case-by- case goal. This approach is being duplicated by the Obama administration. As you may have noticed, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spends more time advocating defence, diplomacy and development than promoting that one last "d", namely democracy. The prominent Middle East expert William Quandt, who spoke recently at the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs, of late doesn't believe the Obama administration is turning its back on democracy and human rights. More likely, he said, it would try to promote these lofty concepts through dialogue and in a more relaxed way. Actually, the Obama administration has managed to convince Congress to increase funding for democracy, human rights, and good governance programmes abroad. The difference between the Obama administration and its predecessor is not in how far they are willing to support democracy, but in how. The current administration prefers a softer approach that involves the improvement of economic and educational conditions, and not just the holding of elections. * The writer is executive director of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs.
