The election does not guarantee democracy

Gabon, Iran, Afghanistan; elections confiscated, elections contested elections caricatured. The list could be much longer electoral processes which, far from being the translation of the progress of democracy, are the demonstration of the absence of the rule of law ". The problem, of course, is not new. The election does not guarantee democracy. Hitler did not come to power in Germany in 1933 by quite regular elections In a resounding test, Fareed Zakaria had focused in 2004 on the dangers of what he called the "illiberal democracy" (1). For him, America had to support a leader moderate as General Musharraf in Pakistan, even though he had not come to power through an election, not the populist leader of the Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, who was legitimately elected.

This classical question today took a new dimension in the transparent and interdependent world of globalization. She calls doubling a Western world which is both carrying a universal democratic message but most often also the heir of a colonial or Imperial past, the second making it much more difficult the use of the first.

Today, at the time of the revolution of information, under the current regime is legitimate, greater is the temptation to make all the results of the elections. The "mode" is significant but not overwhelming victory. And more is also the temptation for the opposition deny the victory of the ruling party, even if it corresponds to reality. In this context of "double illegitimacy", the Western power can't that be "found between two chairs. It is bound to take blows what happens, suspected by the power of supporting the opposition as Iran, or by the opposition to support the power as in Gabon. What lessons can we and should we draw from the confusion of the electoral process in countries that have neither Middle nor democratic culture The time is probably to our self-criticism and flat to our policies. It is not from activism to forbearance. Doing nothing is a selection policy. We have the moral right or the strategic opportunity to withdraw in an ivory tower that does not exist. The temptation of isolationism moral is great, but is simply not a realistic political option. The Iran in the Afghanistan passing by Gabon, they are our interests, even if they are in each case of very different nature, which are be at stake. The risk of a still more hostile regime with an absolute weapon in Iran, that of the reconstruction of a "terrorist sanctuary" in Afghanistan, for the France of the pursuit of an unhealthy neo link in Gabon...

So far, we cannot deceive us in our ambitions or our methods. The pursuit of democracy is a legitimate objective in the long term, but it is the absence of the rule of law which is the most lethal poison for all these countries. The Journal of France 2 recently showed a terrifying story on Haiti, where it saw a judge be a trafficker accomplice. This is corruption which gangrene from within a society. It is open or implied its acceptance that makes us accomplices and makes that, in our support posted to democratic principles, we appear as hypocritical and contradictory. The rule of law "in the Singapore" is already a too ambitious goal for most non-democratic countries.

Our distance with these countries is not only geographical, religious or cultural; It is also chronological. Their time is not, is no longer, or was never ours. How can we understand without try them and help them without paternalism and without unacceptable collateral damage We have more right to missteps. Our success or our failure depends on our "status" in the world of tomorrow.

(1) "The Future of Freedom - Illiberal democracy at homeand abroad", Fareed Zakaria, Norton, 2004.