Bush and Robespierre

When Chou En-Lai, Mao''s foreignminister, was asked what he thought of the French Revolution, he replied: "It istoo early to say." The French Revolution soon led to the Reign of Terror, inwhich the revolutionary Robespierre guillotined scores of fellow revolutionaries(in the name of democracy and patriotism), and was finally guillotined himself.Critics like Burke, in Britain, said this proved conclusively that democracy wasa stupid idea, doomed to end in tragedy. His criticism then soundedself-evident. But today it sounds so myopic that we smile at it. Lesson: manyhistoric events start with blunders and bloodshed, and are recognisable asturning points only decades later. George W Bush, in the inauguralspeech of his second term as US President, pledged to promote democracy andremove all tyrants. Reaction: Gosh, is he going to sack Dick Cheney? Bush willnot laugh at the joke: he wants to be taken seriously.Most Indiancommentators denounce his blunders in Iraq. I sometimes feel like screaming whenBush puts on his half-fake smile and lies through his teeth on TV. But I thenremind myself that his blunders may be no worse than the French Revolution''s,his lies may be no worse than Robespierre''s, and we should beware of repeatingBurke''s myopic condemnation.Neither Bush nor his successors willspend billions or go to war purely for the altruistic benefit of worlddemocracy. But they may indeed do so in the self-interest of the USA: democracyabroad suddenly looks like an essential condition for America''s own security.For decades, critics have jeered at the US for paying lip-service todemocracy but in practice supporting friendly autocrats. This criticismoriginally came from the left. But after 9/11 it was echoed byneo-conservatives.In the Middle East, there are no democracies. TheUS historically aimed (like the Soviet Union) to build bridges with friendlyautocrats. But excellent relations with autocrats did not mean excellentrelations with Muslim citizens. To many citizens, the US was the evil power thatsustained odious rulers. This was felt not only by liberals seeking democracybut Islamic militants. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Islamists in Algeria,ayatollahs in Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Osama in Saudi Arabiaexemplified the trend.Meanwhile, autocrats in the region played acynical game. They totally controlled the media and allowed no criticism ofthemselves. But they happily allowed virulent criticism of the US, especially onPalestine. Thus, Middle East autocrats cynically channelled public anger awayfrom themselves towards the US, and actually encouraged anti-US feeling. Thisincreased their personal security at the expense of US security, something notunderstood for a long time. Then, 9/11 exploded the notion that good relationswith the Middle East rulers ensured US security. On the contrary, this policyfuelled the hate of fanatical Islamists, who proved on 9/11 that they couldinflict immense damage with no support from foreign governments. Osama''s quarrelwith the Saudi royal family became an attack on the World Trade Centre.So, many thinkers in the USA nowseek a new approach. Quelling militancy cannot be done by friendly autocrats.Rather, it requires a liberal democracy that provides safety valves forgrievances, and resolves disputes without making militancy the only outlet fordissidents. So, replace autocracies by democracies, in America''s ownself-interest.Good theory, but how is it to be done? Neither Bushnor his critics have a good answer. Some critics favour non-interference, favourwaiting for democracy movements to rise indigenously and then support them fromoutside. But no Saddam or Saudi king will allow this. Waiting for democracyamounts, in practice, to backing autocracy. On the other hand,Bush''s alternative of promoting democracy at gunpoint looks an appalling messright now. Maybe 50 years down the mess will evolve into proper democracy, asthe Reign of Terror did. Maybe in 50 years the Bush invasion will look like theturning point for democracy in the Middle East. Robespierre and Bush are twobloodthirsty incompetents who ruined a good idea. Yet, time has vindicated oneand may ltimately vindicate the other. As Chou en-Lai put it, it is too early tosay.But it seems to me probable that the Bush approach will fail.Americans are naive to think that democracy can be transplanted in countrieswhere dissent has traditionally been regarded as treason. Changing the mind-setto make dissent not just permissible but honourable will be very tough. It maytake decades. Iraq is a lousy place for such a difficult experiment, given theantagonism between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. A democratic Middle Eastwill unquestionably make the world a safer place. But neither Bush nor hiscritics have produced any convincing way of achieving this. I suspect we facedecades of blood and mess.