Democracy

Matt Yglesias links to the following quote from Pres. Bush:

"There's a lot of suffering in the Palestinian Territory because militant Hamas is trying to stop the advance of democracy."

As Yglesias points out, this makes no sense:

"There are many things you can say about Hamas ("trying to destroy Israel," perhaps), but trying to stop the advance of democracy? Recall there was a time when Fatah was in charge of the Palestinian Authority. At that time, the Bush administration said there was no need for Israel to negotiate with the PA until it agreed to hold free and fair elections. Eventually, the Fatah-led PA agreed to do this. At which point . . . Hamas won the election."

Yglesias wonders "Does Bush even remember this sequence of events?"

I think there is an explanation for this in ideology, rather than stupidity or political rhetoric. Simply put, for Bush, "democracy" doesn't really mean elections. Instead it stands for a whole bunch of characteristics which include democracy, but extend to things like the "rule of law," constitutional freedoms, capitalism, etc. Essentially, for Bush, a "democracy" is a country that looks very similar to us. Democracy is an outcome, rather than a process through which a nation selects its government.

Also, the Bushian ideology of foreign policy subscribes heartily to Democratic Peace Theory, which holds that democracies don't fight each other. This is the assumption behind the "reverse domino theory" favored by the neocons: the argument that regime change in Iraq would lead to democracy throughout the region. If democracies don't fight each other, then creating a Middle East full of democracies improves American security.

By being a democratically elected government that opposes the US and seeks to overthrow another democracy (Israel), Hamas challenges the theory. Therefore, in Bush's ideological calculus, Hamas cannot be a democracy.