Thursday, February 16, 2006
Speaking of regime change in Iran and increased funding for opposition resources there, Coni Rice was on Capitol Hill yesterday asking for just that.
Boston Globe: Rice wants funds for democracy initiative in Iran
The new request, which was made yesterday at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Bush's foreign affairs budget, would increase spending on democracy programs for Iran this year from $10 million to $85 million.
Rice announced the initiative as Washington steps up pressure on the hard-line regime in Tehran over its nuclear program, which Washington suspects is geared toward producing a nuclear weapon.
''We find it in our interest now . . . to see if we can't engage the Iranian population," Rice told the senators. ''In some ways, you could argue that they need it even more now because they are being isolated by their own regime."...
Skipping down to the end:
Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California, had a testy exchange with Rice in which she asked:
''Do you agree that nations throughout the world are electing more negative candidates who run against America?"
''I don't see, Madame Secretary, how things are getting better," said Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican.
''I think things are getting worse. I think they're getting worse in Iraq. I think they're getting worse in Iran."
Why doesn't Chuck Hagel send a letter in support of putting Saddam back in power if he thinks things are getting so much worse? Fool.
In any case, as has been repeated ad nauseum, elections alone don't make a democracy. One may argue that holding elections before the trappings of a civil society can form sufficiently to support a Free over a Fear society is the equivalent of putting the cart before the horse. I agree with that in the ideal case, but setting up an infrastructure of elections can also be seen as getting the ball rolling. It gives the people something to fight over, something to haggle over as they can now demand greater depth and meaning to their elections. Few things make people angrier than being used and lied to. Imperfect elections today can lead to demands for greater transparency, protection of opposition groups, free speech rights and protections. It can be a start that allows the people of the nation itself to have their own battle.
The danger is a rhetorical one that translates to facts on the ground. By calling the very imperfect elections of the Palestinian Authority or Egypt "democracy," we do damage to the word and risk, as can be seen in the exchange above, discrediting it. Rather than having foreign watchdogs step in and certify shams (Jimmy Carter take note), they should be placing pressure on the regimes, shining the spotlight on the abuses and helping to support the pleading of pro-democracy opposition groups in the hope of having a more meaningful final vote. By not doing so, by focussing only on, say, the 24 hours immediately surrounding the vote itself, democracy watchdogs discredit themselves and their cause.
