The president is right, we’re right, many around the world are right. Democracy is as Winston Churchill said “the worst of all possible systems, except for all of the others.” Democratic systems most closely reflect our inherent desire for self-determination, freedom, application of initiative, and opportunity. Democracy is clearly the winner in the long war of ideas over the last three centuries. 

Nevertheless, questions remain, can or should democracy and the desire for it, function as the basis for an effective for foreign policy? The answer is yes and no. 

As a philosophical question, we can and should promote democratic values at every opportunity. We can identify and support the movements that seek democratic transformation. We should be prepared for sacrifice in the interest of offering to others that which we most value for ourselves, freedom.  Recent history supports the premise that democracy tends to engender peaceful societies and economic progress. Wars between democratic countries are rare. History also illustrates that where democratic institutions are not present totalitarian systems of all types evolve and entrench themselves.

The “no” part of the answer is in evidence where the mistake of equating elections with democracy occurs. Democracy, in a true form, depends on institutions that protect the ideals of the philosophy: transparency, checks and balances and the ability for the electorate, by way of institutions and representatives, to audit and constrain the application of power. 

As a business executive, I would draw the line with my managers between what was possible for them to install versus what must be instilled. Install was about reasonable controls, systems and verification mechanisms. Instill was about leadership, human quality, values, example and commitment. What was installed had to be an extension of what could be instilled.

In the Middle East, we have attempted to “install” democracy in Iraq. Worthy effort but absent leadership that can instill democratic values in the population the attempt is, in all likelihood, chimera.  Democratic movements must be prepared for sacrifice and compromise in the pursuit of the prize of democratic institutions and freedoms. We cannot create the demand for democracy and we cannot define the appropriate form for it. We cannot install it but we can, by example, instill the desire for it as we and others have in so many countries now enjoying the benefits of democratic institutions and the rejection of totalitarianism.

It’s a question of being ready!   

In Iran, there are “democratic” elections. However, reformers who support a more representative form of democracy were cowered in the last election and they will be in this one. There was much analysis in advance of the last election creating expectations that “reformers” were making progress in the Iranian body politic. It did not happen, and it will not happen this time.  The vast majority of “reformer” media has been shut down and the movement is under constant pressure from the central government, despite a restive population. 

The reality is The Iranian Revolutionary Guards have moved from points of civic, military and religious control in Iran to Political control points. The expected presence of Revolutionary Guards candidates in the Parliament will, in all likelihood, be more significant than ever before and will further strangle any “real” role for the Parliament. Democratic “institutions” will be utilized to enhance Theocratic control of Iran.

They’re not ready!

In Egypt, one of the most significant priorities of President Mubarak is securing the Presidency for his son. Democratic institutions are essentially a sham that reel back and forth between the influence of Islamists, the repression of Islamists, a pseudo Judiciary and, to be kind, inconsistent application of security forces . There is no clear movement intent on transparent democratic institutions.

They’re not ready!

In Palestine elections have been held with Hamas the winner. Victory was followed by a military take over of the Gaza Strip and essential separation from their rival, Fatah. Palestinians are fighting each other for political primacy. The only significant economic dynamic is Palestine’s role as the most significant welfare state in history. Despite the presence of elections, Palestine is no one’s idea of transparent democracy.

They’re not ready!

The Lebanese have, at least, proven their ability to take to the streets to apply political pressure, resulting in the “disengagement” of Syria. While Syria never really “disengaged” that’s not the point, the effort is the point. Hopefully, the Lebanese will also reject the extremism of Hezbollah. 

They’re almost ready!

The monarchies in Jordan, the Gulf States, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are not going anywhere soon. Go they will, but likely not soon. 

They’re not ready!

In Iraq, there is hope. We pressed the elections and whatever the opinion of the results the Iraqi people were committed and brave despite questions of motivation and sectarian allegiance. In the aftermath of those elections, there were, clearly, failings of political leadership but a path to progress has also emerged.   

It was widely reported, despite the election turnout, that the population was “waiting”, waiting to see who was likely to “win”, before proactively supporting a movement toward democracy. Only when they were sure that the U.S. was not leaving and that and democratic Iraqi forces could defeat the Jihadists did progress accelerate. They were not ready for the full scope of responsibility that democracy demands, but they were ready for the conditions that could support it.    

The Iraqi’s seen to be getting ready to get ready. At a February meeting in Copenhagen a wide cross section of the Iraqi body politic, ethnic, religious and political, met to seek agreements and adopt positions that could lead to true democratic institutions in Iraq, the Copenhagen Accord. On what did they agree? No identification of “minorities” only Iraqis, definition of policies for the entire society, elimination of family violence under Sharia, that Sharia may guide policy but that public policy cannot be strictly defined by it, condemnation of extremism, application of the Rule of Law, a Constitutional state, condemnation of corruption.

This accord is important, but it does not represent the end of what the Iraqis must accomplish and they appear to know that. It does not represent the end of ethnic and religious pressures on the process. It does: however, represent a sea change in political thinking in the Middle East.   

Maybe, just maybe, it’s the end of the beginning and the foundation of the leadership values that will lead to political reconciliation, transparency and the grass roots pressure that is critical to that process. The attendees have proven that reasonable, respectful debate in Iraq is possible.

If Iraqis are ready, if these accords form the basis for new permanent democratic institutions The Middle East will never be the same. A transformative, politically stable, reasonably secure (by Middle East standards) Iraq will be a magnet for political support, economic investment and high skill repatriation. Iraq will set the example that the Middle Eastern totalitarians have feared and worked against all along. 

Iraq could be the pivot point on which the Middle East finally turns. There is nothing the U.S. or anyone else could say that would be a more powerful message in the Middle East than a successful, democratic Iraq. When the conflict commenced there was much analysis of Iraqi potential. The most secular, well educated population in the Middle East. Well, they still are those things. It can be effectively demonstrated that democracy unleashes economic potential. This story in Iraq could be sensational.

Iraqis may be ready!

There is an understanding amongst those who rehabilitate drug and alcohol abusers that the point at which the worst cases realize they actually do need help is when they have sunk to the point where they are looking into the abyss. Iraq seems to have looked into the abyss and decided on a better path.

Iraqis may be ready!

Can Iraq develop a secular society that finds a way to “manage” the religious pressures of Islam? A representative political system that honors the Islamic identity, rejects it’s radical elements and refuses to use Islam as a justification for failure?    

No one knows for sure: however, increasing security, structural agreements related to economics, economic growth, long term security agreements and engaging in regional politics indicate a growing Iraqi confidence.

If the results of the Copenhagen Accords come to represent a movement that the Iraqi people see as a reasonable basis for the nation it just could be, that……….

They’re ready!