Recently, we have seen the Middle East erupt in turmoil. A popular movement has ousted the dictator of Tunisia and protests have now spread to Egypt. Last week, Jacob Batchelor argued that President Barack Obama's administration should advocate more forcefully for Tunisia's nascent democratic movement ("Obligation to Act," Jan. 24). While Batchelor's commitment to "the eradication of extremism in the Middle East" is laudable, we must not make the mistake of viewing the entire Middle East as a homogenous block of nations. Outspoken American support for democracy may be warranted in the case of some Muslim nations such as Tunisia, but may be counterproductive and misguided in the case of others, such as Egypt. In nations with negative attitudes towards the West, it is very likely that explicit American support for protesters will be interpreted as unwanted foreign meddling in domestic affairs. Furthermore, when dealing with unstable countries in the Middle East, it is possible that sudden regime change will result in more, rather than less, extremism and violence.
In 2009, during the chaos of Iran's "Green Revolution," Obama was attacked for refusing to express unequivocal support for the opposition protests led by Mir Hussein Al-Mousavi. These critics ignored two important points. First, outside of the small, highly educated urban centers of Tehran, America remained very unpopular. Second, Mousavi himself did not want his movement to be perceived as the product of American incitement highly visible American support would allow the ruling regime to demonize Mousavi as a foreign tool. Egypt maintains a strongly pro-Western government, but among the general populace, America is incredibly unpopular. A 2010 Pew Research Poll indicated that only 17 percent of Egyptians had a favorable opinion of the United States. Given this context, it is likely that outspoken American leaders would undermine any incipient democratic movement in the country.
Unlike Iran, Tunisia and Egypt do not have organized opposition parties that espouse liberal ideologies. In Egypt, the only credible alternative to President Hosni Mubarak's authoritarian regime is the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood has established itself as a sort of shadow government, providing social services for large swaths of the Egyptian population. In Tunisia, the administration of Dictator Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali has been replaced by an interim government composed almost entirely of his former cabinet members. The protesters have thus far failed to produce a leader with the authority to bargain on behalf of "the people."
This lack of organized democratic opposition presents a problem for American policymakers. Our leaders have been heavily criticized for propping up odious dictators who have pro-Western policies, and this criticism is certainly valid. In this case, however the hesitancy exhibited by the Obama administration in openly calling for regime change is not unfounded. The success of the militant Hamas party in Gaza's democratic elections which were backed by the U.S. demonstrates what can happen when elections are introduced too hastily. The Muslim Brotherhood, while admittedly much less violent than Hamas, holds similarly fundamentalist beliefs. The rise of this organization has led to the de-secularization of Cairo's universities highly conservative religious clerics have infiltrated organizations formerly dominated by liberal scholars. Despite the claims of Mohamed El-Baradei, a respected opposition figure in Egypt, it is unknown whether any new ruling authority would adhere to promises of democracy, or devolve into an Iran-style theocracy.
It is incredibly difficult for us, as Americans, to be wary of democratic movements. We see videos of courageous protesters taking to the streets against the security forces of repressive autocrats and are naturally moved to support them. However, we must also grasp the fact that the situation in the Middle East is much more complex than it appears. We like to think of ourselves as liberal, just and democratic, but many of the citizens in these nations do not see it that way, because America has a long and dark history in this region. The wave of democratic movements sweeping through the Middle East represents an extraordinary development, but Obama's priority is to keep the region from erupting in violence. Democracy should come to the Middle East in the form of orderly elections that are gradually implemented from within states, rather than in a dangerous frenzy of riots and protests naively backed by the United States.
