I'll See Your "Promising Democracy" and Raise You a "Moderate Regime"

by Eric Martin

Matt Yglesias rightfully complains about the tendency of the media to buy-in to the then-current administration's designation of some regimes as "promising democracies" and others as dictatorships or creeping "authoritarian" regimes based, not on the quality of the underlying democratic institutions, but rather on the predisposition of the regime in question toward the policies of the US government.

True, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela was democratically elected. But you can discern his authoritarian tendencies in the fact that he had the constitution changed to allow him to run for a second term, and currently he’s working on changing the constitution again to allow for a third term.

Oh, no, wait . . . that’s not Chavez, that’s staunch American ally and brilliant democratic leader Alvaro Uribe in Colombia. The horror.

...[T]he tendency is for the American media and political establishment to arbitrarily assign...states to either the “promising new democracy” box or “threatening incipient authoritarianism” box based primarily on geopolitical considerations. So-called “pro-American” leaders are also “democrats” whereas those alleged to be “anti-American” are “authoritarian.”

The same phenomenon applies when determining which regimes, leaders and, in some cases, political parties are granted the "moderate" label, and which are deemed "extremist" or "radical."  This tendentious two-step was a key part of the media narrative on Iraq - where, ISCI, an Islamist party formed in Iran by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which was responsible for some of the most brutal sectarian bloodshed in Iraq (torture chambers and power drills anyone?), was labeled "moderate" because they were amenable to a prolonged US presence.  On the other hand, the nationalist group (also Islamist and also with a poor track record in terms of sectarian violence) that bristled at Iranian influence (the Sadrists) were described as "firebrands," "radicals" and "extremists."

A similar frame is imposed on the regimes in the region, with the ultimate designation received determined by their affinity with the agenda of the US government, and their position vis-a-vis Israel, not on their respect for human rights.  Opposition to Iran is a sure fire way for a regime to earn a reputation for moderation regardless of the anti-democratic, repressive and brutal tendencies of that regime.  For example, former Secretary Rice described the following despotic regimes as the "moderate mainstream” Arab states, and the media parroted that characterization, as she was discussing the possibility of lining up opposition to Iran: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Egypt and Jordan.

Saudi Arabia is moderate?  Using what criteria exactly?

More recently, the Wall Street Journal discussed Netanyahu's courtship of "moderate" Arab states:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appealed to Egypt on Monday to create a bloc of moderate Arab states to confront Iran, and said Israel would renew peace talks with Palestinians in coming weeks. [...]

Ending Iran's nuclear program is the top foreign-policy priority for Mr. Netanyahu's government. He hopes to find common ground with moderate Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which share Israel's concerns about Iran. But Arab leaders are reluctant to embrace his vision, which doesn't yet include recognition of a Palestinian state.

"The struggle in the Middle East is not a struggle between peoples or a struggle between religions," Mr. Netanyahu said after a meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in this seaside resort town. "It is a struggle between extremists and moderates, a struggle between those who seek life and those who spread violence and death."

Sure it is, and we decide which is which.

Comments

[Joe]

In the Q&A portion of Clinton's Landon Lecture, he discussed how the current President of Iran was chosen.

Clinton explained the two tier nature of the government, where the religious heads can block moderates, and noted the current President appeared to be a rational choice given the restraints of the system.

There is always the "that player sucks ... oh he's on our team now ... he's great" technique, of course.

http://ome.ksu.edu/lectures/landon/past.html

[Jeff]

What is a "regime" anyway, and how is it different from "leader" or "country"? Iran and Venezuela have "regimes", but Israel doesn't. I think "regime", as I've heard it used, is as much a euphamism for "this country hated Bush" (not "this country is anti-American" -- the two are profoundly different) as "extreme".

[Eric Martin]

Well, I think one can separate leader/regime from country fairly easily.

It's the leader vs. regime distinction that is a bit trickier. But I suppose it has to do with the consolidation of power.

For example, a monarchy has a leader, but a parliamentary democracy with many career civil servants has a regime.

But the terms are often used interchangably (not improperly so necessarily), and you're right that there may some connotations involved.

[Hartmut]

That leaves out about all constitutional monarchies of the Scandinavian or British style or even the (purely formal) Japanese theocracy and there are clearly catholic regimes while the church itself is an absolute monarchy (with the supreme leader being elected somewhat democratically).
I think 'regime' originally was a neutral word (it's even used as a purely technical term in technical chemistry btw) but now has become a synonym of 'illegitimate and/or authoritarian rule'.
There is also the now rather cliched saying about one person's terrorist being the other's freedom fighter (which brings us back to the undoubtedly terrorist founders of Israel that became respected men of state).

[Gary Farber]

""which brings us back to the undoubtedly terrorist founders of Israel that became respected men of state"

David Ben-Gurion was a terrorist?

I assume you're referring to Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, but they were the enemies of the founders of Israel, and were militarily put down by the to-be-government. As political figures after the founding of Israel, they remained on the fringist extremes for eight governments in a row. It took them thirty years to get elected to office.

I suppose this will now open up yet another tedious Israel: Threat Or Menace? thread, so thanks for that.

Cue the comparison to the Nazis in 5, 4, 3, 2....

[ThatLeftTurnInABQ]

'What is a "regime" anyway, and how is it different from "leader" or "country"?'

Its a noun-verb pairing: we kill leaders, overthrow regimes, and invade and occupy countries. SATSQ, if you've been paying attention for the last 50 years.

[Ginger Yellow]

"Oh, no, wait . . . that’s not Chavez, that’s staunch American ally and brilliant democratic leader Alvaro Uribe in Colombia."

Or, closer to home, Michael Bloomberg.

[Hogan]

I think of a "regime" as something like the constitutional framework for a national government. A change of governing party within such a framework is not a regime change; a radical break with that framework and its replacement with a new one is a regime change. 1688 was a regime change in England; 1710 was not.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Regime" is to "Country" as "Compound" is to "Home".

[Scott P.]

Brett,

I think more accurate would be: as "Compound" is to "Estate".

[joel hanes]

Saudi Arabia is moderate? Using what criteria exactly?

Using the only criterion that matters : the business interests of its ruling class are intertwined with the business interests of the Bush family.

[Hartmut]

What I intended to say is that 'terrorist today' does not preclude the same person to become (sometimes even righfully) a respected statesman at a later time (Mandela even switched fron non-violent to violent and back). I even think that Arafat (despite being personally corrupt) could have made the final turn if he had been allowed to.
The Nazis stayed terrorists, just shifted the violence from the state to the (non-state) left after the failed 1923 putsch for tactical reasons. After 1933 they had no need to blow up enemies* since they could use more 'subtle' means.

*In Germany and before about 1938

[eveonline isk]

What is a "regime" anyway, and how is it different from "leader" or "country"? Iran and Venezuela have "regimes", but Israel doesn't. I think "regime", as I've heard it used, is as much a euphamism for "this country hated Bush" (not "this country is anti-American" -- the two are profoundly different) as "extreme".