The Call of Democracy

From Bihar to Beirut, the unmistakable march of democracy is an endorsement of the Bush Doctrine, opines Binay Kumar.

The event passed almost unnoticed in India when Professor John Keane of the London-based University of Westminster spoke in Delhi last week in glowing terms about the ancient roots of the democratic tradition in the country, possibly only rivaled by the Greeks.

There was nothing new in his revelation except that the timing was rather odd; his discourse came in the same week in which India was 'delivering' its own brand of democracy in Bihar, Jharkhand, Goa and Haryana, where political parties were at each other's throats to install governments by blatantly dubious means. Interestingly, however, in each case public opinion finally triumphed over politicking. Mighty rulers have been swept away to herald change in battles, which were, howsoever flawed, fundamentally democratic in nature.

And that is why I say that President Bush must be a highly pleased man these days. From Bihar to Beirut, the unmistakable march of freedom and democracy is an endorsement of the Bush Doctrine at last. When he had first enunciated his policy of exporting democracy to all corners of the world, Bush's ideas had invited huge skepticism or pure scorn.

Even Lalu did not spare him. Bush may not know who Lalu is but that didn't deter Lalu. The White House press office must have amusedly watched newspaper reports emanating from India of a grand 'maharally' in Patna in the April of 2003 when Lalu had chosen to vent his ire at the ruling BJP (for allegedly being communal) or Bush (for the Iraq war); in both cases he was addressing the Muslim electorate in Bihar. Little did he know then that his unbroken 15-year run as the supreme ruler of Bihar was finally coming to an end soon.

It is ironical that hardly a month and a half has passed since President Bush's second inaugural address, which would go down in history as a paean to liberty and democracy. The speech categorically restated his goal of "ending tyranny in our world". Reactions to his speech- including in this column- ranged from deep apprehension to utter contempt. Many of us saw in his words a foreboding of a new round of 'regime changes' imposed by American military. I have no hesitation in admitting that I was amongst the vast majority of commentators who could have hardly imagined then that several events across the globe would so soon cause the President's ideas to be seen as finally being vindicated.

Despite the heavy price it has paid, Iraq has held its first democratic elections. Palestinians have gone through an election of their own and chosen a successor to Yasser Arafat who is just the opposite of who he was. Next door in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak's uninterrupted rule of 24 years is witnessing a new challenge in recognition of which he has finally conceded a multi-candidate presidential election this year.

Even Saudi Arabia - the last bastion of absolute monarchy and autocratic rule and a close American ally- has just held its first municipal elections. We are told very soon the Saudi women will be allowed to participate in elections and to vote. And finally popular demonstrations in Beirut last week brought the downfall of one pro-Syrian government has forced Syria to announce a timetable for withdrawing its troops from Lebanon.

I would not like to leave Ukraine out from our catalogue of democracy's triumph (even though the events occurred prior to Bush's second term inauguration, the American pressure did have an important bearing in shaping the final outcome). Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators, waving orange flags, the color of the opposition leader Yushchenko's campaign coalition, and shouting "Yushchenko is our President", jammed the Independence Square in downtown Kiev for one month in November 2004. The protests began as a spontaneous outcry of public anger against the suspect official results of the second round of voting in the presidential contest between Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych and Viktor Yushchenko.

Like in the case of Goa, Jharkhand and Bihar, common sense won over insanity in Ukraine too. A re-poll was ordered for December 26. International observers, deployed in thousands for this round, reported a much fairer vote, and Viktor Yushchenko won with about 52% of the vote. A new era in Ukraine had just begun.

How much of a role Bush has played in all these events is indeed debatable. The demonstrations in Lebanon were sparked by the outrage at the assassination of the former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, in which the public opinion implicates Syria. Similarly, the man who insisted on elections in Iraq when the US seemed to be wavering was none other than Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, leader of Iraq's majority Shia community. And the death of Yasser Arafat led to the elections that might finally succeed in bringing real peace to the Middle East.

All that said, it is also true that Bush and his aggressive foreign policy have had a significant bearing on all these events. As one commentator noted, "The 2003 invasion of Iraq may have been justified by a giant fraud, but that, and above all the January election to which it led, transfixing the Arab world, has proved a catalyst."

What the people have shown in each case, whether its Bihar or Beirut, Ukraine or Iraq, that those who care for freedom and democracy cannot be intimidated by brutal force, oppression, threats and lies when they exercise their fundamental right to vote in fair and democratic elections.

Political analysts no longer argue about the exclusiveness of democracy to England and America. Thanks to the new-found momentum at the hands of President Bush, they simply ask one question - who is next?