The Washington Post published an editorial over the weekend entitled, “U.S. Policy Seen as Big Loser in Palestinian Vote” that is well worth a read for anyone who wants to know exactly what it’s like to be completely oblivious to what democracy actually is and the institutions that are needed to sustain it. Staff writer Glenn Kassler attempts to critique Bush administration policy toward the Palestinians, in which there are probably many. But it ultimately turns into a condemnation of America’s policy of trying to spread democracy in the Middle East and becomes a declaration that the Palestinians, Egyptians, Iranians, and Iraqis are incapable of self-government. In short, it is the same Third-Worldist view that the poor and oppressed brown people of the world need — no, crave — authoritarian regimes because of their supposed stability. The argument is completely racist. Check it out:

Standing in a sunny Rose Garden on June 24, 2002, surrounded by his top foreign policy advisers, President Bush issued a clarion call for resolving the deadly Israeli-Palestinian conflict: “I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror.”

This week, Palestinians gave their answer, handing a landslide victory in national legislative elections to Hamas, which has claimed responsibility for dozens of suicide bombings and desires the elimination of Israel. Bush’s statement calling for new leaders was aimed at the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, but in the same speech he also said it was necessary to thwart Hamas — formally the Islamic Resistance Movement — and other militant groups.

The election outcome signals a dramatic failure in the administration’s strategy for Middle East peace, according to analysts and some U.S. officials. Since the United States cannot deal with an organization labeled a terrorist organization by the State Department, Hamas’s victory is likely to curtail U.S. aid, limit official U.S. contacts with the Palestinian government and stall efforts to create an independent Palestinian state.

More broadly, Hamas’s victory is seen as a setback in the administration’s campaign for greater democracy in the Middle East. Elections in Iran, Iraq, Egypt and now the Palestinian territories have resulted in the defeat of secular and moderate parties and the rise of Islamic parties hostile to U.S. interests.

No, Mr. Kassler, the Palestinians did not vote for Hamas because President Bush told them not to. Nor did some Egyptians vote for the Muslim Brotherhood because they are ideological psychopaths. And Iran — are you serious? You think those elections, in the face of a massive boycott and government-sponsored fraud, are actually representative of what Iranians think?

In his attempt to identify a broad trend, Kassler loses the plot completely. The rise of Islamist parties across the Middle East with the introduction of elections is not due to overbearing sympathies with radical Islam, but disaffection with corrupt authoritarian regimes. With the stamping out of liberal opposition and civil society, the only alternative to the Mubaraks and Fatahs is the mosque. The big problem with this is that the likelihood of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas acting democratically once in power is very little; in fact, they will likely dismantle even further whatever institutions have already been built.

Journalists and other commenters who know nothing about the exact functionings and institutions of democracy tend to mistake it simply for holding elections. If this were true, then perhaps Kassler is right — the Palestinians are not capable of governing themselves. However, democracy is much more. It is a social contract with the proper institutions in place that guarantee political and economic freedoms despite whoever may be in power at the time. Elections were held in the Palestinian territories without any of the proper institutions being in place to create a liberal society.

If Kassler wants to criticize the Bush administration for failing to hold off on elections while institutions are developed, then that would be fine. Instead, he relies on the structural components that have generally been beneficial toward developing democracy; things like education, wealth, experience, etc. It leads him to the same argument that British colonizers would use about India. That is, until it became the largest self-governing democracy in the world. Leadership matters, sometimes even moreso than the structural components. What was needed was a leadership that could take the Palestinian territories onto the path of democratic nationhood. However, Fatah was so tainted with corruption and inability — in the present and in the path — that it led to Hamas’ victory. This does not mean that the Palestinians, or Iraqis, or Iranians, or Egyptians are incapable of governance. It just means that so far there are no proper institutions to govern with. Elections alone do not a democracy make.