January 27, 2006
Two Elections and a Lesson
By E.
J. Dionne Jr.
WASHINGTON -- In two elections this week, voters tossed incumbents
out of power. But one election made barely a ripple internationally.
The other broke like a tsunami over the entire world. The response
to each vote should teach us the danger of pretending that elections
alone can make democracy happen.
In Canada's
quiet election, Stephen Harper ended more than a decade of Liberal
Party rule. It was a significant achievement for the Conservative
Party. The Canadian right had, until recently, been badly split.
Harper reunited the right, moderated its program and took advantage
of public impatience with Liberal scandals.
But Canadians,
devoted as always to subtlety and prudence, refused to give Harper
a majority. Diane Ablonczy, a Conservative parliamentarian from
Alberta, offered a perceptive take on the voters' verdict. She
said they ``want to test-drive the Conservative Party'' before
allowing it to govern without help. In stable democracies, voters
can take test drives.
In the elections
for the Palestinian Authority, the voters also rose up against
the incumbents. But in the process, they gave a majority to Hamas,
a party that has embraced terrorism and would obliterate Israel.
In responding
to Hamas' victory on Thursday, President Bush, a man who prides
himself on clarity and disdains nuance, was, if I may coin a word,
nuancing all over the place.
On the one
hand, he praised democratic elections for letting voters send
a message. ``If they're unhappy with the status quo,'' Bush said
at a news conference, ``they let you know.'' Indeed.
But he also
seemed to rule out dealing with Hamas if the militant group didn't
change itself radically -- in particular in its attitude toward
Israel and terrorism. ``I know you can't be a partner in peace
... if your party has got an armed wing,'' he said. It makes a
good point about Hamas, though it raises interesting questions
about Iraqi political parties that have links to armed militias.
From this
tale of two elections, it's possible to take the wrong lesson,
which would be to walk away from America's long if inconsistent
quest to promote free elections and human rights. You don't have
to agree with Bush's decisions to believe that an important goal
of American foreign policy should be to expand the number of nations
that live under democratic rule.
But since
the invasion of Iraq, administration spokesmen and supporters
have offered a utopian and decidedly unconservative view of how
American power could be used to change the world -- and quickly.
It was said
that the way to peace in Jerusalem passed through Baghdad. It
was said that by ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein's wretched regime,
the United States would unleash a democratic revolution in the
Arab world. Go back and look at the sweeping claims Bush's defenders
made for his policy after the elections in Iraq just a year ago.
Everything, it was said, was falling into place.
But the
world is a complicated place. Of course, free elections in Iraq
are hugely better than dictatorship. But when free elections become
more a census to count members of warring ethnic and religious
factions than a way of settling underlying disputes, they do not
necessarily pave the way for enduring democracy. They do not provide
voters with ways of test-driving the various alternatives.
In the Palestinian
case, Hamas' victory was not widely predicted, but its strong
showing was predictable. Every serious analyst understood the
frustration of the Palestinian majority with those who have led
them. Everyone knew that Hamas had created a new civil society
-- a network of health and social service organizations -- within
the old Palestinian structure that created a wide base of grass-roots
support.
The polls
suggest that Hamas did not win because a majority of
Palestinians bought into its terrorist program. Hamas won, precisely
as Bush said, because voters were so unhappy with the status quo.
But shouldn't Washington ask itself why it didn't take more dramatic
steps, over a much longer period, to change the Palestinian status
quo? Taking action in Iraq was not going to do the job.
A working
democracy north of our border requires a degree of hope for the
future now lacking among Palestinians. The Bush administration
once thought it could take a holiday from complexity and remake
the world through a few bold strokes. But democratization is hard,
complicated and frustrating. It requires the patient building
of institutions and attention to detail. There are no short cuts.
You wonder if the president will come to terms with the flaws
in his own status quo.
©
2006, Washington Post Writers Group
