Recently on Real Time with Bill Maher, Bill has been taking a position, and I'm paraphrasing here, that perhaps democracy is spreading in the Middle East and the Bush administration is responsible for that in spite of the lying and incompetance they have exhibited thus far. Bill has also complained that his liberal friends are giving him a hard time about this view. He defends himself by saying that lots of things could happen in the next 20-30 years. While I'm not 100% certain that he isn't just being provacative, liberals are supposed to discuss things and think them through, and so we shall...
Assuming democracy is spreading (see examples below), could other things have been the cause of it? Perhaps democracy was going to spread anyway. It's not like no one in the region has ever voted and there were already several democracies and quasi-democracies. Could strong diplomacy have quickened the spread of democracy, perhaps even at a faster rate that the administration's military meddling? And most importantly in my mind, is it even our place to do this? With our increasing meddling in the region, we could end up with a bunch of new democracies that still hate us and still want to blow us up.
Examples:
Iraq - Certainly the Bush adminstration is responsible for the democracy here, but this story suggests that Saddam may have been open to internationally monitored elections without being invaded. But would he have been without the threat of invasion? And, of course, was it worth it?
Afghanistan - A Bush administration democracy certainly at least as far as Kabul. Reports are the warlords still control the rest of the nation. A President Gore would, no doubt, have invaded Afghanistan post-9/11 and probably worked toward a democracy there. Perhaps Gore would have been less distracted by Iraq and worked more effectively in rebuilding the country.
Iran - Already a quasi-democracy. I know Khatami was voted in but I'm not sure about the religious leaders. A strong reform movement has been growing for many years. I don't know how to predict what would happen should Bush take action against Iran.
Palestine - The death of Arafat was probably the major catalyst to the voting there.
Lebanon - Already a quasi-democracy. When demonstrations led to the resignation of the pro-Syrian president, larger demonstrations by Hezbollah factions swept him right back in.
Pakistan - Quite the opposite. What was a quasi-democracy before 2001 is now more of a military dictatorship. I've seen little pressure brought to bear by the Bush administration against Musharraf's government.
Egypt - Mubarak has softened his stance on allowing other parties into the government. Will it happen and how much of it have to do with the actions of the Bush administration?
Saudi Arabia - Their token male-only local elections are hardly worth noting.