With the rise to political power of Hamas in Palestine and Shi’ite Islamists in Iraq thanks directly to U.S. policy and the election of the colourful Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thanks in part to Mr. Bush’s short-sighted alienation and ostracisation of Iran, some kind of “democracy” is on the loose in the Near East. That I have always regarded the success of democratisation as equally undesirable as its collapse into a new era of dictatorships is no secret to anyone familiar with Eunomia, so I have an unusual perspective on how Mr. Bush’s hopes for democratisation have begun blowing up in his face.

Does everyone remember how, not two months ago, we were assured that the Iraqi elections in December showed that democratisation was succeeding and that all of us naysayers were wrong (as we supposedly usually are)? At that time, elections were the heart and soul of democracy–have an election, form a government (how are the Iraqis doing on that, by the way?) and you’re on your way. But now that Hamas has won an election convincingly and is about to form a government, we begin to hear from the democratists that “elections are not everything.” Why, you need the rule of law (except when Mr. Bush needs to spy on someone, or detain him, or start a war…well, you get the idea)! You need protections for minorities (but just ignore the Christians in Iraq and Palestine)!

Well, of course, elections aren’t everything if you want a stable, legitimate government that does not abuse its power wantonly and governs for the common good (in other words, a constitutional republic or monarchy of some kind), but elections have been everything to the democratists up to this point because nothing more complex than “democracy” has been their slogan and watchword. Rveolution. Will of the people. That’s what they wanted (not in this country, of course), and now they’re getting it good and hard. How often did silly democratists talk about “purple thumbs” and “purple ink” when the Iraqis voted, as if we should be gladdened by this? No one is talking enthusiastically about green banners in Palestine, even though the very same green banners are flying in large parts of Iraq and mean exactly the same thing there.

For anti-Islamists (which neocons pretend to be) to embrace Iraqi Islamist victory and shun it in Palestine would be like an old anticommunist celebrating the fall of Cambodia while lamenting the fall of Saigon. It is hypocritical, obviously, but it ought to make everyone question the soundness of the judgement of people who are taking these opposed, irreconcilable positions at the same time. If having Islamists in power is undesirable in principle (yes), and probably undesirable for Israel and the U.S. (yes, yes), then it is undesirable wherever it occurs, so the democratisation likely to bring these things about is always undesirable. Don’t expect that kind of “clarity” from our friends in Washington.

If there is a “domino theory” in the Near East, it is not one leading to any kind of “freedom,” obviously, but it is U.S. policy that started knocking the dominoes over. What has been Mr. Bush’s guiding assumption? That, to put it in his delightfully simple language, “democracies don’t war.” Oh, okay. So Hamas represents the pacific will of the people. Glad we worked that out.