Democracy Advocates for Hypocrisy

At least that is the accusation of Haaretz writer Schmuel Rosner writing for Slate.

His thesis is, basically that those who advocated democracy as a cure for violence, oppression and corruption in the Arab mideast now advocate, in effect less democracy because they support PA President (and relative moderate) Abbas in his struggle with the parlimentary majority Hamas.

Rosner's article is at:

http://www.slate.com/id/2155722/

Here is some of the article,

"... British Prime Minister Tony Blair, visiting the West Bank on Monday, declared, "If the international community really means what it says about supporting people who share the vision of a two-state solution, who are moderate, who are prepared to shoulder their responsibilities, then now is the time for the international community to respond."

I'm not sure if Blair thought seriously about this sentence before uttering it—but, in some ways, it captures the essence of the West's real policy—America's too—in the Middle East. Not the rhetoric, the reality: no democracy, no "elected government," no "right of the people to decide" (which they did, in last January's elections). It's the people who are "moderate" and who "support a two-state solution" that deserve the support of Blair and President Bush. And if those moderates lost an election—well, never mind. You can always call for another one, and another one—until the people get the message and elect the desired government."

Well one obvious problem is that if Abbas is calling for new elections, how can supporting Abbas in this case be called hypocrisy?

Rosner has a point that the countries that don't like Hamas don't seem to acknowledge that Hamas won an election. However, this isn't hypocrisy. Its more like refusing to face the truth honestly. Notice the quote from PM Blair doesn't actually use the word 'democracy'. Also, Blair never said that "if Hamas wins we will recognize them..." (if he had Rosner would have found the words). This then becomes more of one of the many annoying things about diplomacy rather than hypocrisy.

Supporting Labor Unions

A prominent left wing US website has in essense accused the right wing US of hypocrisy in that the right wing US supports labor unions in foreign countries (specifically a bus driver union in Iran) but opposes labor unions the USA.

The article notes the long history of this activity, for example back in the late 1980s the US supported the Polish Longshoremen Union (Lech Walensa) but in the early 1980s then President Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers who went on strike.

The accusation is more fully stated at:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/14/the_right_stands_up_for_labor.php

This accusation is another case of insufficient specificity.

Let's take the 1980s. The US supporter the right of Polish Longshormen to form a union and to collectively bargain and, if they didn't reach an agreement, to strike.

On the other hand, President Reagan did not oppose the right of the Air Traffic Controllers to form a union. He did not oppose the right of the ATCs to collectively bargain. However, given that the law prohibited strikes, he opposed their right to strike.

I'm not sure what the Polish law was about striking but during the cold war most Warsaw block countries had very progressive 'on the books' laws that were actually ignored by the government which used emergency decrees.

In the current case the right wing US does not oppose the right to organize or the right to collectively bargain or even the right to strike (except where it is against the law - e.g., firemen). The fact that the right generally opposes closed shops, high minimum wages and the like is simply not the same as the basic rights.

Thus the charge of hypocrisy, without better parallel between societies, is rejected.