The BBC Radio ran an interview with Natan Sharansky on its “Taking A Stand” program. There’s no transcript of the interview, so you’ll just have to listen to the report. He talks about his time in the Soviet gulag, his release, his career in Israeli politics, and most interestingly his take on Hamas’ victory in the Palestinian elections.

His position is that though the election obviously represented the true choice of the Palestinian people, it is not good for democracy. His book, The Case For Democracy, focuses extensively on the issue of promoting democracy in the Palestinian territories. He says that democracy is not just elections, but building institutions to transparently channel the will of the people in an effective manner. It is also necessary to build a culture of liberalism, moderation, and respect for these institutions in order for democracy to work.

The problem with Hamas and other extremist parties vying for power in the Middle East is that they hold a very maximalist view of democracy; that is, if they win then they can do however they wish. Same goes for groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. The problem so far is that these countries have not developed these institutions, so any kind of elections there will simply produce a democracy that is minimal at best. Some might say that is better than nothing, but ultimately Hamas is more likely to take it apart altogether than to build it. Instead of holding parliamentary elections, perhaps it would have been better to form a transitional government whose sole purpose was to build institutions instead of allowing one terrible party to replace another.

UPDATE: Athena from Terrorism Unveiled discusses similar marks by Fareed Zakaria, the author of another comparatively good book, “The Future of Freedom.” You can find both books, by the way, on my sidebar to the left.