Washington has determined that a democratised Arab world is in its -- and Israel's -- interest. The assumption is wide off the mark, writes Hassan Nafaa* Elections used to come and go without any one taking much notice, for reasons that are known. But things have changed of late, for reasons that are equally well-known. The region is preparing for a number of legislative and presidential elections over the next few weeks or months, and many -- both inside and outside the region -- are curious to see what happens. Lebanon has parliamentary elections scheduled in late May. Palestinian elections are due on 17 July. Egyptian presidential elections are slated for September, and will be followed by parliamentary elections before the end of the year. All are expected to leave their mark not only on the countries involved but throughout the region, though whether these elections will mark a real turning point is hard to tell. On the surface, at least, some -- perhaps all -- of these elections seem to be a response to US pressure. Democratisation in the Arab world is seen by the current US administration as a national security issue. There are those who believe US interests have finally coincided with the interests of the nations of the region -- the argument being that free and fair elections will free the Middle East from decades of despotic rule. Below the surface, the story is totally different. Elections are being held in the region in line with an agenda promoting common US- Israeli goals. According to this agenda the Lebanese need to rearrange their domestic scene in such a way that Hizbullah is disarmed and the country becomes a springboard for pressuring, and subsequently overthrowing, the Syrian and Iranian regimes. According to that same agenda Palestinian elections need to result in a security apparatus capable of dismantling the Palestinian resistance and removing all obstacles to a settlement on Sharon's terms. In Egypt the goal is to force open the country's tightly-sealed regime and in doing so encourage the emergence of one capable of adapting more flexibly to regional and international changes, one capable of leading the Arab world towards embracing schemes of a greater Middle East. But will these elections produce results that will accord with US-Israeli goals? One thing is sure: in all of these countries the elections will reflect current struggles between those who want to cooperate with the US-Israeli scheme and those who oppose it. Opponents come from both government and opposition ranks and when political horns are finally locked we can expect the US to throw its weight behind its supporters. Since the renewal of President Emile Lahoud's term in office Lebanon has been unravelling. Syria failed to keep its promises concerning the extension of the presidential term and the US used Syria's mistake to engineer a sudden rapprochement with France and pass resolution 1559, that Diocletian sword now hanging above Damascus, Hizbullah and even the Palestinians in Lebanon. As if this was not enough, the assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri left Lebanon reeling. Many, inside and outside Lebanon, tried to make political capital out of Al-Hariri's killing. And many honourable Lebanese used the murder to demand an end to the police state, not just in Lebanon but throughout the region. There are some who do not want the elections to produce a strong and democratic Lebanon, certainly not one that remains fully integrated in its Arab environment. What they want to do is resuscitate the past, disassociate Lebanon from the region, and send it into alliance with the US, France, and even Israel. Fortunately, Lebanon's cedar revolution has made it clear that what matters is not how the Lebanese stand vis-�-vis Syria, but how their position towards the resistance and the question of Hizbullah's arms. Rejecting the police state, many now understand, is not the same as cooperating with a US and Israeli agenda. The emergence of this new perception in Lebanon is reassuring, but we are not yet out of the woods. Politicians may change tack at any moment, shedding sugarcoated promises to show more insidious political colours. This is why the elections are important. Should the elections succeed in bringing about a majority that supports the Lebanese resistance and defends its right to hold arms, Lebanon will emerge stronger from the crisis. Such an outcome will energise the quest to end the police state in the Arab world. It would re-assert the fact that democracy and political participation, not repression, are the only real guarantors of security and sovereignty. The elections will also be a test of US intentions in the region and the type of democracy the Americans are willing to accept. The Israelis were hoping to see the Palestinians engaged in civil war following Arafat's death. This hope is now gone. The presidential and municipal elections went smoothly. Now the Palestinians are preparing for legislative elections on 17 July and Hamas is taking part. The truce is still holding despite Israeli provocations. Sharon obviously hopes that the truce will collapse during the next few weeks and that elections will be postponed for Hamas could easily win either a majority, or sufficient votes, to reject any Israeli-imposed terms for a settlement. Hamas is expected to play a leading political role and help formulate a national strategy to manage the conflict with Israel. Dark clouds are appearing on the horizon. Some forces are trying to postpone Palestinian legislative elections, apparently for fear of Hamas's victory. Curiously, the US president is silent on the matter of postponement, whereas he is adamant Lebanese elections be held on time. The Palestinian elections are crucial for the entire region, regardless of who wins the majority, for they will mark the birth of a new Palestinian national system, one expected to be more democratic and therefore more able to face upcoming challenges, including those related to US and Israeli intentions. These elections, too, will test what kind of democracy the US wants to support in the region. It is Egypt, though, that will provide the ultimate test of Washington's regional intentions. President Mubarak's decision to amend Article 76 of the constitution has untethered civil society and set in motion a chain reaction has yet to be fully played out. In the coming weeks and months the Egyptian regime is expected to make tough decisions that are bound to trigger external reactions. Should the presidential elections turn into a farce the US may have to renounce its outcome. Should the elections be held freely, there is no telling what the outcome will be. And even if a National Democratic Party (NDP) candidate wins the presidency legislative elections, scheduled a few months later, may change the scene. The essence of the dilemma is that free elections may not always bring about an outcome acceptable to the Americans. Our people need democracy and free elections -- they do not need the US agenda. This is a fact the US will one day have to accommodate. * The writer is a professor of political science at Cairo University.
