Democracy is the goal, whether by revolution or evolution

A few years ago, when the United States signed a bilateral cooperation agreement with an "emerging democracy", it included language committing both sides to human rights and democracy -- and one could assume that was Washington's way of promoting some American values. But it turns out, it was the other country's own foreign minister who insisted on the language. As he explained, he needed it to convince his government that Washington takes progress and transparency on these issues seriously.

Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi is rumored to be searching again for safe haven somewhere in Africa, while also insisting he'll never give up. Laurent Gbagbo, the former President of Cote d'Ivoire, is locked up tight. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak has been questioned in an investigation into corruption during the three decades he served as President (while his military comrades continue to call the shots). And so on. This is all truly inspiring, and no doubt more longtime despots will follow suit.

Africa and the Middle East will never be in the same, and mostly in a good way. But just mostly.

Gbagbo's democratically elected -- and Great Power-delivered -- successor, Alassane Ouattara, is no champion of democracy. For the most part, the heroic opponents of Qaddafi's rule are more rival tribes than a movement for pluralistic respect for human dignity. 

Not every freedom fighter ends up governing like a Nelson Mandela, and not every opposition leader is an Aung San Suu Kyi. In too many cases, Europe included, "democratic" activists only want a free election in order to get into power. They make long lists of promises to sincere Westerners. If human rights advocates openly assist the opposition in its bid to unseat an autocrat, why should the regime cooperate? Much of our work is convincing the autocrats that they can open up and respect fundamental rights (if not yet the one about popular rule) without losing their hold on power. 

The latest revolutions and uprisings are a positive trend, but it is too early to know the outcome in any affected country. And the threat of ignoble ejection definitely weighs more on the minds of the remaining dictators. But it's still worth facilitating interim progress, WHERE POSSIBLE, especially if it can mitigate death and destruction while paving the road to eventual peaceful -- and sustainable -- transition.

French democracy - for export only?

DEMOCRACY ABROAD


Let there be no doubt, democracy was advanced yesterday in Africa. And payback is aways nice, too.

The French just apprehended Laurent Gbagbo after weeks of brutal fighting and negotiations. Gbagbo was the President of Côte d'Ivoire who consolidated the country and led it out of a deadlocked and deadly civil war, only to lose the first free election since... But more importantly, the French had to enjoy the moment, since they have long backed the other side, in this case the side whose candidate won last November's vote. My question is, whether the same tanks that knocked through Gbagbo's palace in the name of democracy were the same ones France was using just a few years ago to try to get their rebel allies into power by sheer force. 

Somehow Gbagbo managed to head off France's interference long enough to get his country back on track, only he forgot that too much of a good thing, c'est trop. Instead of taking the villa in exile with trust fund, he'll now get a condo with bars.

XENOPHOBIA AT HOME

Meanwhile, back in the birthplace of Liberté, Égalité & Fraternité (i.e., Ile de France), the popular national ban on public display of full veils went into effect. Some months ago, an online video ridiculing this initiative went viral [warning: contains dangerous post-modern dichotomies and moral complexity]. French tolerance has gone from ridiculous to medieval, in under one year.

Mubarak can stay, but only in disgrace

For many years, Hosni Mubarak has sold himself to the West and the Israelis -- and the Egyptian people -- as a force of stability and moderation.Since Tuesday, he can no longer make this claim with even a veneer of credibility, nor present himself as a hero to his fellow Egyptians. His violent crackdown against peaceful and overwhelmingly anti-Mubarak protesters moves him from tolerable autocrat to embarrasing pariah.

This may sound heartless, but many countries find themselves allied with dictators, especially in regions with few if any democratic governments. It's a Devil's deal -- keep your repressive enforcement tactics below the radar, make some pretense of representative government, and we'll focus on your positive attributes. 

A line is crossed when a leader openly overstays even his own pretext for power. In Tunisia, the revolt happened too quickly for most nations to renounce then-President Ben Ali. In the case of countries like Cote d'Ivoire, Zimbabwe and Belarus, we don't need their friendship enough to keep looking the other way when that line is crossed. Because of Mubarak's role in sustaining bilateral peace with Israel and promoting broader Mideast efforts -- and the inextricable billions in U.S. assistance -- it will not be so easy to break with Egypt and our leverage over him is limited. But neither can we keep looking the other way. The genie is out of the bottle.

Mubarak has lost the confidence of his own people, and he is willing to attack and impoverish them. He is willing to sack the Egyptian Museum's 5,000 years' worth of Egyptian cultural heritage. He is willing to take Egypt down with him. Unless he loses the support of his own military sponsors or gives up on his own, Mubarak will probably get to stay in power, but without the aura of domestic legitimacy and international respectability.

This week it's Tunisia, but remember Zimbabwe?

Tunisia is in the middle of a stunning, popular revolution, and democracy advocates are pushing for Egypt to be next. The leader of Cote d'Ivoire refuses to cede power following his electoral defeat. South Sudan is on the verge of independence and possibly further violence.

One man has special reason to be pleased with this turn of events: Robert Mugabe, the onetime revolutionary turned corrupt despot, who has overstayed his tenure as President of Zimbabwe. Remember him? I had almost forgotten about him. Last autumn, all eyes were on Zimbabwe, where Mugabe was violating the terms of his power-sharing arrangement with the winners of the last election. He is no longer the Most Despised African Leader, and Zimbabwe is not even in the news.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy admitted this week that he was caught off guard by the democratic fervor in Tunisia, a former French colony. So were we all. Every now and then, there are mass demonstrations throughout Africa and the Middle East, and Western leaders cannot afford to risk security and economic stability on the chance that one freedom movement might succeed. But we do love to celebrate their success, after the fact.

Will nations commit more funds to developing civil society internationally, as a result of Tunisia's early success, the challenges of Cote d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe, or the near-totalitarian stasis in Egypt? Will they make democracy and human freedom true priorities of their foreign policy? What put Tunisia over the top was its own population and its own civil society, not some organized strategy of the international community.

Tunisia, Sudan, Cote d'Ivoire: Opportunities for Africa

Change is sweeping across Africa this month, from Tunisia in the north to Sudan a little south, to sub-Saharan Cote d'Ivoire.

None of these unfolding and uncertain situations is linked. But their cumulative impact of Arab, Middle East and African politics is significant. The public is becoming more hopeful and confident, while dictators are torn between giving in to popular demands and locking down further. Did the regime in Tunisia fail to open up in time, or was the response to protestors too soft?

Even though these events are influencing the perspectives of the rulers and the governed across the region, every country has its own specific circumstances and considerations.

In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak has carefully quashed the secular opposition, so the only viable alternative to his party is the Muslim Brotherhood. This makes Mubarak the bulwark against extremists, but it also makes it more likely that any post-Mubarak government might be run by radical Muslims. And Mubarak has doubled down by promoting his son to be his successor.

Politically, Sudan is uncharted territory. Southern Sudan's referendum could lead to the first split of an African since... Eritrea? It won't be pretty, but it also involves a genocidal dictator, so there's another blow for "democracy" or self-determination, if the south succeeds.

Cote d'Ivoire was coming out from under civil war and some latter-day French imperialism, then its president decided to ignore the results of an election that would have ended his tenure. Because of the turmoil in Sudan and a swath of failed states in central Africa, the African Union and Western powers are already pressuring President Gbagbo to step down before the road to stability is washed away in a spiral of violence and poverty.

Word is, President Obama plans to focus more on foreign policy and on Africa specifically this year. Just the holding of the Sudan referendum was a tribute to U.S. diplomacy, so the timing couldn't be better. Let's hope the results measure up.