When the Bush administration took the US to war in Iraq, a primary motivation was to neutralise Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. They turned out not to exist. But another ambition of the president was to spread democracy in the Middle East, which somehow seemed to have been bypassed in the global march to liberty during the past four decades. Iraq after Hussein was supposed to become a democratic touchstone for other Arab lands.

In a speech on the occasion of his second inauguration, President Bush declared, “There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment … and that is the force of human freedom.” Bush was joined in this campaign by Britain’s PM Tony Blair, who told his sceptical countrymen: “We are fighting for the inalienable right of humankind ... to be free.” They had a common belief that tyranny must be challenged and that liberty is the birthright of all men and women.

But where stands the drive for democracy in the Middle East at this moment in history? Critics of Bush say Iraq is a sinkhole of despair. There is something in the Arab psyche, they suggest, that renders democracy unattainable. Supporters of the president argue that while Iraq is not moving politically with the dispatch that impatient Americans expect, it has held elections in which millions of Iraqis voted, it has developed a constitution, and it has formed a government. The truth probably lies somewhere between these two extremes. Installation of democracy of the Jeffersonian character is unlikely. Where reform is budding, the outcome may be freer structures of representational government, but not necessarily patterned upon those of the West. They are more likely to incorporate local customs and traditions. Islamic countries would probably develop governmental systems that pay heed to religious beliefs. Afghanistan and Iraq are examples.

While outsiders can support, indigenous people must take the initiative in the movement toward freedom. In his second inaugural address, Bush recognised this:“US will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.”

Outsiders need patience as Muslim reformers sometimes encounter setbacks. Democracy requires not only elections but the structures that support and strengthen it. Along with elections must come press freedom, independent judiciary, and protection for minorities. While the Arab nations of Islam make limited progress, large non-Arab Islamic countries — Turkey, Indonesia, and Pakistan — are wrestling with the coexistence of freedom and religion in Islamic communities.

Can Islam and democracy co-exist? The answer seems to be yes, but with various modifications. Perhaps those of us who hope for change should talk less about “democracy” and more about “freedom” and “liberty,” which have universal resonance. — The Christian Science Monitor