Targeting pluralism
If democracy is a process, where do we start--from the political, the economic or the social?

Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood and misused. Although the number of proclaimed democratic states has risen considerably in recent years, democracy has by no means attained its ultimate objective of peaceful global coexistence. The radiance of democracy is overshadowed by the democracy-resistant Middle East. This region has remained the least affected by the waves of democratization that have reshaped world politics since the end of World War II. The Middle East has become a bulwark of authoritarianism, conflict and instability and a breeding ground for terrorism. The recent US military adventure in Iraq, which was touted as the forerunner of democratization in the region, only made things worse. Under these adverse circumstances, the question of how the United States and the European Union intend to promote democratic reform in the region remains imperative. The US, EU and the Middle East at large diverge not only on the meaning of this concept but also on its applicability, process and implementation. This diversity in the democratization concept has clearly manifested itself in Iraq, Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and the Arab world at large. When Americans who are seeking to build a democratic polity in Iraq pronounce that democratic advance will require "the creation of political parties and the management of free and fair elections", the challenge of democracy-building for the US would appear to lie in promoting the political institutions of democracy while portraying other factors as less important. In this way, the concept of democratizing the "greater Middle East" witnessed a setback, as did the domino theory that holds that the fall of the first Middle Eastern dictatorship will ultimately result in the fall of all Middle Eastern dictatorships.
Thus the spirit of democracy in Washington is manifesting itself more as forceful rhetoric than a clear, calculated plan. European and Arab skeptics who have questioned the power of US Middle East policy ever since the US invasion of Iraq are now curious about the future.
In contrast, the European Union emphasizes that democratic consolidation rests essentially on economic foundations and that economic crises play a prominent and perhaps exceptional role in triggering the success or breakdown of democracy. In other words, the faster the economy grows the more likely that democracy will move forward. Thus an adviser to the EU has written, "without demonstrable progress on the economic front an innovative government cannot develop or sustain democracy." This EU agenda, therefore, places its primary focus on the requisites of economic growth, such as human capital formation and secure property rights. This mode of thinking has been drawn upon recently with respect to Iraq.
The European Union shares with the United States the obligation to promote democracy in the Middle East. Under the umbrella of the European Neighborhood Policy, democratization has become one of the primary strategic objectives of the EU. Yet despite all good intentions, what is missing are teamwork with the US and a collaborative energetic engagement with domestic political actors in the Middle East willing to support the democratic reform process.
As a reaction to Islamic fundamentalists, moderate Islamic political parties have emerged powerful in several Middle Eastern states and attracted global attention due to their reformist political agenda. The priorities of moderate Islamic parties and the formation of their reform agenda give them a stake in the political process through either parliamentary participation or government rule. The question here is whether the integration of Islamists in any US or EU plan for democracy merely contributes to the stabilization of authoritarianism or paves the way for a more pluralistic and democratic political system.
It has become evident that in contrast to Islamic fundamentalists, moderate Islamic parties affirmatively adopt conservative positions on social issues yet generally support reform of the political system in the direction of democratization. They understand democracy as battling corruption, improving political participation, establishing or consolidating the rule of law and protecting fundamental human rights. The increasing influence of liberal democratic political values on the political programs of these parties has been an encouraging political signal to the US and EU regarding the prospects of democratization.
In line with the above, the negative experiences of Middle Eastern scholars have indicated to them that democracy cannot be attained unless it is placed on its behavioral foundations. They have come to realize that the essential building block of democracy is "social capital" that is defined as "shared norms or values that promote social cooperation". Social capital is critical for successful democracy. Yet it is a two-edged sword, and can also be part of the problem as new democracies are emerging. Specifically, social capital in the Middle East is often formed on the basis of bonds of religion or ethnicity and defines itself in terms of "the other". Yet if democratic consolidation is to take place within diverse societies, it would seem that the norms of social cooperation cannot reliably be grounded primarily on ethnic or religious identification.
As a consequence, we are brought back to the fundamental question; if democracy is a process, where do we start--from the political, the economic or the social? Which is the best approach that permits cooperation to take place among persons and groups who are reluctant to positively interact for lack of trust?