What, or who, is a democrat?

To the British, it seems, anyone who survived one sham election. Or so they say. Israel’s Prime Minister visited London and asked that the British follow the American example and refuse to meet with Yasser Arafat. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said no. His office reported, “The foreign secretary made clear our position, as with the rest of the EU, is that Arafat is the democratically elected president of the Palestinian Authority and we will continue to have dealings with him as we see fit.”

To the British, it seems, anyone who survived one sham election. Or so they say. Israel’s Prime Minister visited London and asked that the British follow the American example and refuse to meet with Yasser Arafat. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said no. His office reported, “The foreign secretary made clear our position, as with the rest of the EU, is that Arafat is the democratically elected president of the Palestinian Authority and we will continue to have dealings with him as we see fit.”

There are a great many problems in the British position, beginning with the phrase, “democratically elected.” These two words should never be together if their object is Arafat. His election in the territories was a fraud; running against a handpicked retired female schoolteacher who wasn’t allowed to campaign. But even allowing for function over form, the term to which he was “elected” in 1995 expired in 1999.

He declined then and since to submit his rule to a referendum of Palestinian voters. When people do that and stay in office beyond their terms, they are dictators, not presidents. The British had no trouble with the concept when the French embraced the dictator of Zimbabwe, a former British colony. Why the double standard when it comes to the dictator of the Palestinians?

The British noted that their position is the EU position. We do understand that the British government wants to get back in France and Germany’s good graces after loyally standing with the U.S. on Iraq; we just don’t understand why. What the French know about building democracy in the Middle East is best forgotten; the legacy of French colonial misrule in the Arab world persists in the despotism of Syria and the savagery of Algeria. What the Germans know about modern democracy, they owe largely to American occupation. Anyhow, Italy, the current EU president, refused to meet with Arafat. Hungary and Bulgaria did the same – perhaps a portent of improved democratic impulses for the EU when the two are admitted to full membership.

President Bush spoke clearly about democracy and about Arafat. In his 24 June 2002 speech, the President called “on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror – to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty.” “Practicing democracy.” A remarkable phrase, acknowledging that democracy requires practice and has its foundation not in voting, but in tolerance and liberty. Which is why there are far more dictatorships with voting booths than there are real democracies. Which is why the U.S. has not announced elections in Iraq. Yet.

Perhaps it is too much to ask that the British sign on for the American Revolution of the 21st Century; they didn’t fare too well in the 18th Century version. And perhaps it is too much to ask the British to come to terms with their Mandate mistakes – the boundaries of Iraq and Jordan/Israel/Palestine were all drawn by the British and were all failures in varying degrees. But it is nevertheless disappointing that a country as grounded in the truth of liberal democracy as Great Britain is cannot find a way to support the building of Palestinian democracy by ignoring the Palestinian dictator.