Is democracy the key to Mideast peace?

I'm referring to a new doctrine put forward by President Bush last week, when he called for Palestinians to build "a practicing democracy" before the United States will support some form of Palestinian statehood.

The President contended that a Palestinian democracy - with new leaders and institutions - could become a model for "millions of men and women around the globe" or even the whole Muslim world.

Since then many conservative pundits have argued that creating Mideast democracy is the key to Mideast peace, not to mention the fight against terrorism. Speaking on CNN, Rich Lowry of the National Review opined that the administration aimed to create "a new, freer, more pluralist politics in the Middle East. That's where peace will be found."

Other pundits talked of Palestinian democracy first, then democracy in Baghdad (after the administration unseats Saddam Hussein). Or vice versa. Either would become the role model for a new brand of Mideast politics.

I hate to challenge such a pretty picture, but the President is walking right into his own democracy trap.

Before I get to the trap, let me say no one would be happier than I if this rosy scenario became real. The Middle East suffers from a huge democracy deficit: The only multiparty democracies are Israel, and to a limited extent Lebanon (whose independence is curbed by the heavy hand of neighboring Syria.) Arabs are ruled by a collection of monarchs and authoritarians who permit minimal space for democratic discourse.

The Palestinian Authority has become a model of misgovernment and corruption (which both past U.S. and Israeli administrations tolerated when it suited them). Its own people disdain it and bitterly criticize the failures of Yasir Arafat.

But let's have a reality check. U.S. policy in the region, under both Republican and Democratic presidents, has never made democracy-promotion a priority. Our main Arab allies in the antiterrorist fight are Egypt and Saudi Arabia; the first has jailed pro-democracy activists (including an American citizen), and the second has never held an election. Yet the Bush administration is touting the fact that both have agreed to help us "reform" the Palestinian Authority.

Nor are we pushing new Muslim allies in the antiterrorism struggle to democratize. Think Pakistan, ruled by a former general after a coup, and authoritarian Uzbekistan. Could it be we prefer antiterrorist tough guys? Recall that when Algeria held elections in 1991 that led to a radical Islamist victory, the first Bush administration supported the quashing of the election by the military.

So is the Bush team really eager for multiple Mideast elections no matter the result?

And has it noticed that past U.S. efforts to promote "democracy-building" - from Morocco to Yemen - have made progress at a snail's pace? Ditto for similar efforts in other regions, and for democracy aid to the Palestinians.

"Modest progress towards political reforms is possible [with Palestinians] over the next few years," says Amy Hawthorne, author of Democracy Deficit: U.S. Democracy Promotion Efforts in the Arab World. "But the miraculous transformation called for in the President's speech is far too ambitious."

Hawthorne was speaking at a conference this week on Reforming the Palestinian Authority, sponsored by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which produced some other cautions for the President on his democracy scenario:

Bush needs to determine whether he seeks democracy or predetermined election-outcomes. Democratic elections may produce leaders who are clean, but still support armed struggle. The administration wants Yasir Arafat out, but stressing that point may convince Palestinians - and other Arabs - that he is less interested in democracy than in manipulating the results. There are better ways to ensure that Arafat's power is curbed.

For that, the President needs to listen hard to Palestinian reformers who want to change their government - and find a peaceful solution to the Israeli conflict. Several, including pollster Khalil Shikaki, were present at the conference.

Shikaki believes reformers could kick Arafat upstairs through constitutional change which would give real power to a prime minister. But he fears that reforms will be sidetracked by continued West Bank fighting, unless the Bush team clarifies its vision for a Palestinian state and how to get there. He says Palestinians still don't believe in Bush's democracy talk, because it's so scarce on details - and on a U.S. role in helping Palestinians reform their government.

So, if the President is, indeed, serious about Mideast democracy, he needs to spell out exactly what he means.