For the long run: anyone out there have a better idea?
The underlying argument against democracy in the ME is that culture is decisive. Liberal democracies are the product of long-term trends such as the diminution of tribal and communal loyalties, the separation of church and state and the political empowerment of a burgeoning middle class. Absent these essential ingredients and the democracy is destined to collapse.
These arguments basically describe the rise of Western democracies. But simply because it took centuries to establish democratic orders in Europe, it does not necessarily follow that it takes centuries to establish one in the ME. Japan, South Korea and Thailand all went from either fuedal societys or quasi-military dictatorships to consitutional forms of government in much less time.
In the ME, the previous US policy was to support or tolerate undemocratic regimes. That period also coincided with the rise of al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, the WTC bombing in '93, the bombings of US embassies in Africa and the USS Cole, and September 11. Francis ***uyama may or may not be right that promoting democracy does not resolve the problem of terrorism in the short-term. (See this
thread for more on ***uyama's opinions.) But for sure,
we know that tolerating dictatorship not only does not solve the terrorist problem but actively nurtures it.
Which brings us back to the question: what should our policy be? We could respond to Bin Laden's truce suggestion and just retreat completely. But that would mean, in effect, that we would have to trust Bin Laden to keep his end of the bargain.
We could continue doing what we have been attempting for the past two or three decades: encourage friendly autocrats to modernize their countries without necessarily creating the kinds of openings through which Islamic fundamentalists could come to power. Egypt is a good example of this effort - and its singular lack of success.
Finally, there is the effort currently underway. One question that these efforts are answering is, exactly how do we know that a country does not want democracy,
except democratically? Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians and Lebanese have all made their democratic preferences plain in recent elections. And with the possible exception of the Palestinians, they have voted to establish considerably more
liberal regimes than existed previously.
To be sure, democracy is not a cure-all. These fledgling democracies still face considerable peril from insurrection, ethnic or religious feuding. The possiblity of a "Hitler scenario" can't be excluded either (Hitler actually came to power democratically in 1933).
But even so, democracy offers the possibility of greater liberalism and moderation. Seems to me that our bets are better placed on promoting democracies, even if some of them fail, than acceding to dictatorships, which have already failed.
(Note: much of the above is paraphrased from
this.)