Beware instant democracy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1169776,00.html

Amid all the talk about bringing democracy to the Middle East, it is worth recalling that the first multi-party elections in the Arabian peninsula were held in Yemen almost 11 years ago. The elections took place in April 1993 amid great celebrations but in May 1994, just over a year later, the country plunged into civil war.

Yemen's experience provides a useful reminder that mix-and-drink democracy, just like instant coffee, can turn out rather different from the real thing. Fresh supplies of instant democracy powder will shortly be heading towards the Middle East, courtesy of President Bush and his "Greater Middle East Partnership Initiative", though we shall have to wait a while to see if they are drinkable.

The fact that it's an American plan, coupled with Washington's patronising attitude towards those affected by it, has already stirred up suspicion in the Arab world, with good reason. A more important reason to be worried, however, is that the plan has been ill-conceived from the start. It is adapted from the 1975 Helsinki pact that was used by the west to press for greater freedom and human rights in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. That the Bush administration should have latched onto this model is scarcely surprising, since it fits neo-conservative dogma which mistakenly views the problems of the Middle East in Cold War terms.

In reality, the differences between the former Soviet bloc and the Arab countries of the Middle East are so great - in politics, culture, state apparatus, etc - that it would be miraculous if both responded to the same medicine. The differences within the Middle East - between Iran and Israel, say, or between Kuwait and Tunisia - are also much greater than they were within eastern Europe during the Soviet era, so any remedies would have to be tailored much more carefully to fit the circumstances of specific countries.