Democracy represents possibility in the Middle East

The past few weeks have seen a rush of democracy across the Middle East. Popular protests in Lebanon, elections in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and the announcement of multi-candidate elections in Egypt have the potential to transform that embattled region. There is great promise in these events.\nWhile it is easy to be moved by the hope of liberty coming to a new people and a troubled area, it is also easy to feel a sense of accomplishment too soon and to misinterpret these events in light of political goals here in America.\nThe most spectacular images have come out of Lebanon, where the assassination of the country's former prime minister Feb. 14 triggered massive street demonstrations against Syria. Syria has occupied Lebanon for 15 years, originally intervening to stabilize a civil war and to repel an Israeli invasion.\nIn the past few days, hundreds of thousands of anti-Syrian protesters have gathered in Beirut's Martyr's Square asking for a Syrian withdrawal. Their efforts resulted in the resignation of the pro-Syrian government. \nAbout the time protests began in Lebanon, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak announced that, for the first time since the military coup in 1952, there would be a second candidate running for president. Mubarak has served as president of Egypt since 1981 and has never faced an opponent.\nThe announcement of election reform came a few weeks after the leading opposition leader, Ayman Nour, was arrested. The arrest created tension between Egypt and the United States, causing the U.S. secretary of state to delay visiting the country. \nThe changes that have been made in these last weeks will endure, at least in symbol, because countries gain status by claiming to exhibit a kind of democracy. The idea of democracy is an idea accepted around the globe; it is in its application that countries differ. \nThe fundamental characteristic of democracy is that people have a voice in their government. Voting is a demonstration of this voice, but the simple right to vote does not create democracy.\nIraq under Saddam Hussein had elections, albeit for a single candidate. China has had elections since 1984.\nThere are countless places in the world where people have the opportunity to vote, but their votes are determined by fear or intimidation. This is not freedom. While the symbol of voting exists, the voice of the people is lost. That is the danger in the Middle East now. \nElections will continue to be held in places like Saudi Arabia for many years to come. The important question is whether or not its people's lives will improve or if they will have a say in its governance. Actual reforms must last longer than the semblance of reform.\nIf people have the opportunity to vote but not the opportunity to enact change, the elections are meaningless. The elections, especially in Egypt, might be a ruse to allow repressive governments to stay in power by delivering a show of democracy lacking in substance.\nRegardless, there are certainly reasons to remain positive. Progress must start somewhere, and these dramatic changes will have lasting repercussions. It is encouraging to see peaceful revolution take place in a country such as Lebanon, which was one of the most violent places on Earth 15 years ago. \nBut much must be done before reforms lead to true representative government.\nPresident Bush, however, does have a unique opportunity: The region is ripe for change. The president has an opportunity to work with other nations in the world and, perhaps, improve relations his policies have damaged. This administration has the unique opportunity to accomplish more through its diplomacy than through its wars.