Only Democracy Brings Peace

By Natan Sharansky
October 30, 2000

In the last three weeks many supporters of the peace process, both in Israel and abroad, have expressed their "shock" at the recent outbreak of violence.

What appears to have caught those dreaming of a quick solution to the conflict completely by surprise is the depth of hatred that the Palestinians evince towards Israel. The animalistic mutilation of our soldiers and the calls of "Death to the Jews" that are now echoed throughout the Arab world have raised the eyebrows of even the most ardent supporters of compromise. But unfortunately, most of those taken aback by recent events have focused their attention on the symptoms rather than the disease.

Long ago, Andrei Sakharov taught me that a society that does not respect the rights of its own citizens will never respect the rights of its neighbors. The reasons for this are rather simple. Democratic leaders are dependent for their rule on the will of a free people and as such have a vested interest in promoting the peace and prosperity that all free societies desire. In doing so, the nations they govern naturally assume a non-belligerent posture toward their neighbors, particularly when those neighbors are also democratic states that are pursuing the same objectives.

Leaders of authoritarian regimes, on the other hand, are not beholden to an electorate and devote their energies to controlling the minds and bodies of their subjects in order to maintain stability and consolidate their power. But to exert such extensive control necessitates a repression that will not be long tolerated if the regime does not manufacture the external and internal enemies that serve to justify it. "War" and "peace," which are clear opposites in the lexicon of democratic leaders, are for the tyrant merely interchangeable methods of subjugation.

That is why governments in countries with cultures as diverse as the former Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and Iraq all share one thing in common - hate. For such states, brute force is never enough. They must also carefully indoctrinate their subjects into a hate-filled ideology that can be used to keep their citizens mobilized against any "enemy" of the regime - an indoctrination that also helps to divert the dangers of popular dissent, which could threaten authoritarian rule. Such regimes are therefore inherently belligerent and democratic nations must always be on guard against them.

One would think that policymakers in Israel might have understood this when they attempted to make peace with their authoritarian neighbors. Had Israel and the West ensured that the emerging Palestinian society was a free one, they would not only have served their own interests, but would also have sent this powerful message to leaders throughout the region: that they too must embrace the forces of democratization and liberalization.

Yet the pervasive assumption among nearly all of Oslo's proponents was that the undemocratic nature of Yasser Arafat's regime, far from being an obstacle to peace, was actually a strategic asset. Repeatedly told that Mr. Arafat was the only man who could "deliver," we were also informed that he would be even more effective than Israel in fighting terror. Yitzhak Rabin used reasoning that chillingly summed up the government's entire approach. Mr. Arafat would deal with terrorists, he said, "without a Supreme Court, without human rights organizations and without all kinds of bleeding heart liberals." In light of such an understanding of our "peace partner," do we have anyone to blame but ourselves for what Mr. Arafat's authoritarianism has brought upon us?

Of course, the notion that strong dictators make valuable allies is neither new nor exclusive to Israeli policymakers. Whether it was appeasing the Soviet premiers of yesterday or coddling the Arab autocrats of today, the tendency to see the merits of such iron-fisted rule has colored Western strategic thinking for decades. The axiom that democracies do not go to war with one another may well be understood in the abstract, but is all too often ignored in practice.

Yet while America and the West have sponsored tyrants from a comfortable distance, Israel has been subsidizing a dictatorship right in its own backyard. And like all dictators, Mr. Arafat needs an external enemy to justify internal repression and maintain his authority. And who better than Israel.

That is why, in the seven years since Oslo, he has used every means at his disposal, from the Palestinian-controlled media to newly printed textbooks, to speeches by his own wife, to inculcate hatred of the Jews and their state. And that is also why I have done everything in my power to convince both Israeli and Western policymakers that the non-democratic nature of Mr. Arafat's regime was itself the greatest threat to peace and security. My years of preaching that what was being taught in Palestinian schools and broadcast on Palestinian television was the most important factor in building a true reconciliation between our two peoples was met with polite nods of agreement, yet little action.

This wasn't required by the Oslo agreements themselves. Israel could have stood firm in the face of Palestinian non-compliance and refused to continue the peace process, but instead Mr. Arafat's disdain for the accords' provisions against incitement was blithely brushed aside.

In truth, no one took these issues seriously. After all, demanding that Mr. Arafat actively promote peace to the next generation of Palestinians was too much to ask of the "freedom fighter" if he was to remain the "strong" leader we so badly needed. Consequently, a peace process that should have been designed to reduce an animosity that existed long before a Jewish state was born exacerbated it instead.

Sadly, Mr. Arafat's antics are all too familiar to the Jews. When Hitler came to power in 1933, he took the reins of a European state that, like many of its neighbors, had deep anti-Semitic roots. Yet the short path to the most heinous crime in human history was paved by an authoritarian leader who consolidated his hold on power by using every means at its disposal to demonize and dehumanize Jews and blame them for all of his nations woes. As Mr. Arafat beats the drums of war, I am comforted by more than the fact that, unlike 60 years ago, the Jews now have the power to defend themselves. I am also hopeful that the latest violence may usher in a new approach to the peace process - an approach that will allow the forces of liberalization and democratization to penetrate the Arab world. By not thinking the Arab people incapable of establishing a free society, the democratic nations of the world will begin to create the real "New Middle East" that so many of us can still dream about.