A little over one year ago in the Ukraine, a revolution was sparked by election fraud. Huge demonstrations and strikes crippled the corrupt government and forced them to hand over power to the actual victor of the presidential election. This "Orange Revolution" took many observers by surprise, considering the close ties of the Ukrainians with the Russians, who firmly supported authoritarian regime that was forced out. Yet this event was shortly followed by more amazing and astounding news: in Lebanon, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan, popularly-supported movements ousted their former oppressors and prepared to enter the society of democracies. Even Palestine conducted its first free elections in January 2005.

These events were hailed as being important to both the United States and the world at large, and many American pundits went so far as to claim that the U.S.-led war in Iraq was the catalyst that generated the widespread groundswell for democratic governments across central Eurasia. They reasoned that President Bush's stand for democracy in the Middle East was the critical factor in pushing the masses from restless inaction to change in their own countries. It was said that without a pro-active U.S. in the Middle East, Lebanon would still be under the military rule of Syria and that the other revolts would have never materialized in numbers sufficient to make a difference.

To be honest, what they said makes a lot of sense. By undermining the regime of Saddam Hussein and attempting to create a Western-style democracy in Iraq, the United States seems to have placed the only new element in the Middle East in recent years. There was little that was different in Lebanon or the Ukraine from the years before that would make a revolution likely. Although it may turn out that these revolutions were "spontaneous" in many ways, it should at least be noted that the United States' pro-democracy stance committed America to these movements and brought real pressure against authoritarian governments not to ignore the demands of the demonstrators. The real debate should not be if the United States has made a difference, but how much of an effect it has had and how long it is likely to last.

Consider, for instance, that in 1917, Europe only had about seven countries that practiced a limited form of democracy. With the end of the First World War, that number jumped to 16 democracies which were of a much more substantial nature. For example, there were free elections open to all women and men and expanded freedoms for the press.

Yet by 1935, the number had once again collapsed to seven. The substantial progress made by the United States' war to "make the world safe for democracy" was surprisingly short-lived. 

So perhaps this is what we are experiencing right now, an all too brief foray into a more democratic world. In both 1919 and 2004, the world had been changed through a war that shattered important regimes in critical places. Although the United States' invasion of Iraq was certainly nowhere near as extensive or damaging as World War I, it does make one wonder how successful these new democratic movements will be.

Evidence that this movement might be only temporary is sadly plentiful. In Palestine on January 25, there was major evidence of the potentially transitory nature of the democratic movement which shook the world in late 2004 and early 2005, particularly in the Middle East. On Election Day in Palestine, Hamas won a majority in the parliamentary elections. Hamas' radical stance on terrorism, Islam, and Israel have placed them on the list of terrorist groups for decades; they have long advocated a violent overthrow of Israel and rejected any compromise position between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The election of Hamas to a position of power by the Palestinian people, though, is not the only evidence. In Egypt in 2005, Hamas' parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, made significant gains in the elections there, capturing 20 percent of the vote and making them the second largest party in the country. This was accomplished despite significant oppression and a general ban on the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, parties which see fundamentalist Islam as their prime motivator have made inroads in just about every Muslim state in the region. These parties have majorities in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, and Pakistan. The reason that they are not in power in the other Muslim states is primarily due to their repression by the current governments. 

So what does this mean? Should the world expect to see a new form of extremist Islamic government arising in the Middle East, and how can the United States and the West respond properly? 

It is not enough to merely note the continued rise of these radical parties without taking some form of action. The Muslim Brotherhood is based on principles which are antithetical to Western views in many respects and as such there will be no way to avoid confrontation through standard practices. Economics and politics are not the primary motivators of these Islamist parties, and the U.S. will need to generate new strategies to deal with the challenges which will arise from this ideological movement. Religious doctrines hold more sway over these parties than do economic or political situations in the world. For example, in the Middle East today, offensive cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed generated widespread protests and rioting, but torture scandals by the U.S. military were met with only a fraction of the reaction. Nestle, a Danish company, has lost almost 20 percent of its business in the Middle East because of the Danish newspaper that published the cartoons.

The problem is not identifying whether or not to act; it is more along the lines of what kind of action will actually make a difference. If Iraq voted in an Islamist party with a large U.S. military contingent still in the country, then perhaps further invasions will not prove successful. One likely target for United States invasion is currently Syria, and looking at Syria's political atmosphere confirms the above suspicions, for one of the most prominent opposition groups to the B'athist regime in power there is none other than the Muslim Brotherhood. However, invading Syria would most likely see the creation of yet another Islamist regime, as they have credibility with the people and have plans for the future. Invasion and military action against the dictatorial regimes in the Middle East will probably lead to the creation of more Islamist states, while ignoring authoritarian states and doing nothing will surely lead to the eventual overthrow of those regimes and the imposing of Islamist states. 

Sounds like a lose-lose scenario if ever there was one. Is there any hope? 

Not in the short term, most likely. Yet isolating and impoverishing these countries through reducing the importance on their oil and gas reserves might prove important in pulling the Middle East away from religious quarrels and onto economic grounds where the West can use its superior economic muscle to force change. In addition, the West should ensure that any and all extreme Islamic regimes are seriously undermined and that the ideology of Islamist government is discredited as quickly as possible. To aid in this, the West should begin a program of recruiting and training young Muslim Arabs in the ways of democratic states and then send them back to their home countries to bring about change. If the West can discredit Islamic fundamentalists as political leaders and demonstrate the great benefits of free societies, then there will be a serious redrawing of the political map in the Middle East.

The United States and the democratic community of nations face a serious struggle in the near and long term to make the recent additions to the democratic world stick and prevent the rise of a competing ideological movement in the form of extremist Islamic governments. The West has several options open to them, but it seems almost impossible for the Middle East not to have more governments dominated by Islamists in the near future. 

 talkback to the pulse