If the events precipitated by the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of Iran teach us anything, it is that democracy in the Arab Middle East is a catch-22. Unlike many of the other Arab countries in that part of the world, Iran has a substantiated semblance of democracy in a tiny part of its society. Sure, the unelected Supreme Leader lays down and supervises all laws, commands the armed forces, has the sole power to declare war, can appoint and dismiss members of the judiciary and controls state television and radio networks, but Iran still showcases the consequences of popular control in the area of presidential election.
Only a few months ago President Ahmadinejad was elected under the more democratic instant runoff system with a combined total of nearly 70 percent of the vote. In the months since then, this man has proved to be a raving, if not outright, psychopath, or at least something very close. In the "death to America" vein, comments like "God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States..." have been particularly troubling. In the global community you do not wish or threaten annihilation and extermination. That some entertain debate about whether we should let this man have his finger on the nuclear trigger is another question altogether.
But this democratically-elected deviant raises larger questions about the efficacy and desirability of democracy in the non-Israeli (and possibly Lebanese) Middle East. If this man, in the context of an ostensibly democratically elected office, is indicative of the outcome of potential popular control in similar countries, than we may need to rethink our strategy. The more Middle Eastern countries have opened up their governments to the people, the more we have seen discouraging results. From the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to Hamas in the Palestinian-occupied territories, we have seen the election of forces more than a little hostile to women, the West, Christianity and liberty. That Iraq will necessarily follow the same unfortunate path is unclear, but the degree of influence exercised recently by forces in Iran does not bode well.
Unfortunately, the opposite strategy does not seem to be working much better. In the majority of other countries where the government is sufficiently insulated from the people, authoritarian rule is the name of the game. In countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, authoritarian rulers are far more liberal and far less genocidal than the governments that might spring up in their place, to judge from the Iranian example. These governments are hated, tyrannical and above all seen as stooges of the American government, which is in turn blamed for all the economic and social ills of the country.
So, as Americans we are caught in a difficult catch-22. Promoting democracy may well lead to the election of borderline-insane fanatics, while backing tyrannical regimes is probably better for the people there and around the world but is very much undemocratic. We can allow zealots and demagogues to whip people up into a terroristic frenzy themselves or we can continue to stand behind tyrannies that repress their people into an even more all-consuming hatred but at least do not give it government sanction.
For my part, I hope that we can increasingly avoid being forced towards one or the other of these choices and opt for a third: energy independence. With this option we can extricate ourselves from what is, at present, the lose-lose situation that is the oil-corrupted, Arab Middle East.
I am not going to pretend that this has not become a disgustingly politic remark to make especially among hapless lawmakers and I am similarly not going to pretend that I know how to do this. But if Brazil can power their cars on sugarcane, with the promise of being able to do the same thing with corn, soybeans, and more, we have to do this and do it now.
Allowing the economy the freedom to expand is generally the best course of action, but when vital national security interests are at stake, we must put our foot down. If, as Thomas Friedman wrote, green is the new red, white and blue we had better start wrapping ourselves in conservation and renewable sources today to avoid even worse involvement in the unstable Middle East tomorrow.
