Uncharted Journey: Promoting Democracy in the Middle East (review)

The Middle East contains fewer democratic governments than any other geographic area in the world. Why this is so remains unclear, but there is a general feeling that the establishment of democracy would lessen the violence stemming from that area. Accordingly, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has enabled Thomas Carothers and Marina Ottaway to assemble thirteen Carnegie papers relevant to the problem and publish Uncharted Journey: Promoting Democracy in the Middle East. A better subtitle would have been Promoting Democracy in the Arab World, since the three non-Arab countries in the area, though obliquely referred to at times, are virtually ignored.

The basic question that the editors address from various angles is, How can we as Americans promote democracy in the region? They recognize that democracy can be constructed only by the people living there but also that the outside world can be of assistance and certainly be encouraging. By giving the area what might be called a social-science scrutiny, they attempt to show the present state of affairs and prospects for democracy. Graham Fuller, for example, points out the philosophic differences between democratic rule and what a fundamentalist Islamist would consider proper governance. The Islamist belief is that a country's affairs should be governed by God's rule, not by what is popular at the moment. The Ten Commandments are commandments, not statutes enacted by a representative body. Thus, the best government is that which is in accord with God's law, that which is written in the Koran.

In the West, during what was called the Enlightenment, recognition was given to both the moral requirements of religion and the need for representative government. Criminal acts were forbidden because they were morally obnoxious, against the teachings of the Bible, and because they undermined the efficacy of government. It was possible to be morally upright, pious, and God fearing and still believe in a representative government. The strict fundamentalist Islamists have not yet reached that point, but some cracks are being made in their stonewall demeanor. Some are participating in elections because they recognize the need for popular support and by so doing open themselves to dialogue, even if rather limited.

Ottaway offers an essay titled "The Limits of Women's Rights." She states that "the US government has made the promotion of women's rights and the empowerment of women a central element of its new campaign to modernize and democratize the Arab world." This effort meshes nicely with that of the United Nations' principles, since there is a consensus that the advancement of women's rights aids the economic development of a nation. Ottaway points out that despite this righteous talk, the world's parliaments are disproportionately male, with Congress more so than others. She also makes the very valid point that a police state is still a police state regardless of how many police officers are women, and that a rubber stamp parliament is still a rubber stamp parliament regardless of whether women are or are not members. This is all very true and is worth repeating. At the same time, however, we should remember that the achievement of women's rights, or the achievement of anyone's civil rights, male or female, is an advancement of democracy. The fact that under the new government in Afghanistan a little girl can now go to school just like her brother is good for the little girl, good for her family, good for her country, and good for the world. It is a right she will hold onto with all her power. We should be happy that the United States helped establish that right, even though the country she lives in is not yet the democracy we would like to see it become.

Ottaway also discusses American credibility, pointing out that people react to their perceptions of what our policy is, not necessarily to the reality of...