Are Islamist victories avoidable?

“If democracy is to triumph in the Middle East, then Islamist victories are unavoidable and essential.”  This was the resolution debated in the opening panel of last Thursday’s event on “Dictators and Dissidents: Should the West choose sides?” hosted by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.  Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress affirmed the resolution and Rob Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal opposed it.  Though there were two teams, four different positions emerged.

Gerecht argued that democracy takes time and we should have faith in the democratic process.  We may not know what the ultimate outcome of a democratic process, but we do know what will happen with the alternative.  Dictators in the Middle East did not move their countries any closer to democracy.  They created an environment that gave rise to al Qaeda.

Stephens responded arguing that the democratic process will not be successful when those participating, Islamists in his example, are opposed to democracy.  Democratic process cannot be conflated with democracy.  Stephens added that sometimes we have to make difficult choices, like supporting a dictator if we think the outcome will be more democratic than a democratic process in the same area would yield.   Gerecht equated this with Kemalism, which he called “enlightened despotism.”

Satloff denied the inevitability of Islamist victories.  In reality, Islamists rarely win – they almost never get more than 1/3 of the popular vote.  What really happens is that non-Islamists lose because of in-fighting and lack of coherent vision. Ahmed Shafiq won 48% of the popular vote even though he was associated with Mubarak suggesting desire for non-Islamist leadership. A  capable non-Islamist candidate from an organized party would have had a good shot.  To believe that people in the Middle East will often elect Islamists is to fall victim to what Satloff calls the “bigotry of low expectations.” We should believe that people in the Middle East are capable of making reasonable decisions and as such, will not elect Islamists every time.

Katulis argued the opposite point.  He said debating this resolution is like debating gravity.  Islamists are winning.  When they do win, he believes they will have to moderate their ideals and policies, which might be the best antidote to extremism.

It was unclear who won the debate.  It seems like the root question is about how much faith one has in the democratic process.  Election outcomes don’t matter if your faith is strong.