Iraq and its neighbours: Can democracy be imposed?

But now that the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussain has fallen the challenge is for order, stability and preparation for democracy. But are the US and UK really interested in democratising Arab countries? Is the Islamic tradition, as some suggest, incompatible with western style governance? And, after such a brutal US/UK intervention into Iraq, isn't the notion of democratic rule by the people for the people just a little hollow?

Both Bush and Blair disingenuously portrayed the war on Iraq as a war of good against evil. Their aim, they claim, was to destroy the yet unfound weapons of mass destruction and to liberate the Iraqi people from the yoke of dictatorship to form their own governance. But a cursory scan of Arab countries particularly those with vast oil wealth demonstrates that the only prerequisite required for collaboration is not democracy but a willingness to service US/UK economic and regional interest. One could go further and add that these undemocratic and often despotic states were created and propped up by western interference and manipulation.

Kuwait for example, the third largest oil producer in the region, would probably not now exist had it not have been for the intervention of the British Government, who in 1899, signed an historic agreement with the then ruler Shaikh Mubarak al-Sabah, al Sabah. The British agreed to give Mubarak navel protection against the encroaching Ottoman empire, who had declared it to be their land, in return for future land deals and other business interest.

The British intervened again in 1923 when Saudi Arabian rulers claimed rights over Kuwait. The deal brokered by the British secured valuable oil concessions. Kuwait became an independent state in 1961, with elections for Assembly members. But the Kuwaiti model of governance can hardly been seen as democratic as the same family oligarchy have ruled the country almost unhindered for the last hundred years. Such a regime does not afford many of its citizens basic human rights. According to Human Rights Watch, little has been done by the Kuwait government to investigate the hundreds of cases of extra-judicial execution, torture, and "disappearance" in custody, after 1991 Iraqi invasion. Human Rights Watch also claim that 100,000 Kuwaitis known as Bidum face extreme daily discrimination.

Saudi Arabia, the West's other loyal ally has an even worse human rights record. The Kingdom's fourteen million citizens and seven million foreign nationals are denied a range of basic human rights under international law. Freedom of expression and association, political parties, independent local media and peaceful anti-governmental activities are all forbidden, according to Human Rights Watch. They add that the kingdom's human rights record feature abuses such as 'institutionalised gender discrimination, harsh restrictions on the exercise of religious freedom and the use of capital and corporal punishment.

In their defence, and in a sentiment that is echoed across the Arab world, Saudi Arabia's deputy Premier, Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, told the UN last year that 'It is absurd to impose on an individual or a society rights that are alien to its belief or principles'. What the Crown Prince was articulating is the tension between Islamic Sharia (law) and international human rights law much of which underpin the essence of democracy.

It is the unwillingness and/or inability of many Arab countries to separate religious law from State law that lead many critics to suggest that democracy and Islam are incompatible.

Although there are major challenges ahead for the Arab world, not only within their own states but how they relate to western democracies, many have argued it is an error to claim there is a contradiction between Islam and democracy. Many Muslims consider Islam to be the oldest form of democracy. The concept of Shura or consultation is a key factor in the Koran. A strict reading of Islamic law therefore demands that leaders should not only consult their people but also seek general consent.

Perhaps an even bigger obstacle of addressing the 'state verses religious' law is the lack of credibility the US/UK have espousing the ideals of democracy as something that delivers justice and equality. The only nation in the region that proports to have a western style democracy is Israel. But that particular brand of democracy is a brutal oppressor and displacer of Palestinians. Furthermore, western governments, particularly the US, continue to unreservedly support Israel's actions with full knowledge of its barbarity and non-compliance with UN resolutions.

In reviewing this great complexity of ideas - religions, interests and power struggles - the jury is still out as to whether the US/UK's violent intervention to remove a dictator will engender the region to embrace more open and democratic societies. It's difficult to see though how the US will allow the Iraqi people to choose their own government, if that free will choice rejects US interest. Another key factor in the equation for a peaceful region is the coalition's promise to deliver the Palestinians an equitable long-term settlement that will ensure an independent state.

A cynic would say fundamental change will not occur and they may be right, but I hope that ordinary people living in powerful countries will keep the pressure on their elected representatives to deliver justice and facilitate and support positive change that empowers Arab people to create a free society unshackled from western interference.