"Wale wanaoweza kuacha uhuru wa msingi ili kupata usalama wa muda mfupi kidogo hawastahili uhuru wala usalama." -- Benjamin Franklin Tarehe 8 Machi 2005, Rais George Bush, akitaja maendeleo nchini Afghanistan, Iraq na Palestina, alisema kwamba demokrasia inaanza kuenea katika Mashariki ya Kati na kwamba "utawala wa kimabavu ni pumzi ya mwisho ya zama zilizokwisha kukataliwa." Utawala wa Bush na wafuasi wake wamezitumia matukio ya Mashariki ya Kati kutoa tathmini ya matumaini kuhusu mageuzi ya kidemokrasia na hadhi ya Marekani katika eneo hilo.

“Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -- Benjamin Franklin On the 8th of March 2005, President George Bush citing progress in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine said that democracy was beginning to spread across the Middle East and that “the authoritarian rule is the last gasp of a discredited past.” The Bush administration and its supporters have seized upon the events in the Middle East to give an upbeat assessment of democratic reform and America’ s standing in the region.

Baadhi yao wamefikia hata kulinganisha tukio hili na kuanguka kwa Pazia la Chuma, huku wengine wakionyesha kwamba hili ni uthibitisho wa sera ya kigeni ya Bush tangu tukio la 9/11.

Some have even gone far as making comparisons with the fall of the iron curtain, while others are pointing to a vindication of Bush’ s foreign policy since 9/11.

Hata hivyo, nyuma ya maneno hayo mazuri, mtazamo wa Bush wa kueneza demokrasia Mashariki ya Kati na sehemu nyingine za dunia unapungukiwa sana na kiwango hicho hicho cha demokrasia ambacho Marekani huitumia mara kwa mara kupuuza matokeo ya uchaguzi, kuwakosoa madhalimu, na kuzipa serikali onyo.

However, behind the rhetoric, Bush’ s vision of exporting democracy to the Middle East and other parts of the world falls way short of the very same democracy standard America routinely employs to dismiss election results, castigate despots, and put states on notice.

Kanuni kuu ya demokrasia inahitaji watu kuchagua uwakilishi halali katika mazingira yasiyo na upendeleo, yasiyo na vitisho vya ndani na yasiyo na uingiliaji wa nje. Bush alikuwa wa haraka kutumia kipimo hiki kwa Ukraine, na hivi karibuni zaidi kwa Lebanon.

A central tenet of democracy requires people to choose legitimate representation in an environment that is impartial, free from local intimidation and foreign intervention. Bush was quick to apply this standard to Ukraine and more recently to Lebanon.

Katika kesi ya Ukraine, Bush alikiuka kiwango hiki, kwani ushahidi uliibuka kwamba ubalozi wa Marekani ndio ulioongoza "Mapinduzi ya Machungwa" ya Yushchenko.

In the case of Ukraine, Bush contravened this standard, as evidence emerged that the US embassy was responsible for spearheading Yushchenko’ s “Orange Revolution”.

Nchini Lebanon, uchochezi wa wazi wa Washington na uungaji wake mkono kwa "Mapinduzi ya Mierezi" pamoja na madai yake kwamba uchaguzi ujao hauwezi kuwa wa haki na huru, isipokuwa Lebanon iwe huru kabisa kutoka kwa uvamizi wa Syria, unanuka unafiki.

In Lebanon, Washington’ s open incitement and support for the “Cedar Revolution” and its demand that forthcoming elections cannot be fair and free, unless Lebanon is completely free of Syrian occupation stinks of hypocrisy.

Je, uchaguzi nchini Afghanistan, Iraq na Palestina haukufanyika chini ya ukaliaji wa Marekani na Israeli? Je, wagombea hawakuchujwa na Marekani? Je, hali kabla ya uchaguzi na siku ya uchaguzi haikuwa ya kutokuwa salama na ya woga? Je, matokeo ya uchaguzi hayakubadilishwa na mchakato wa uchaguzi haukupangwa na kuendeshwa kwa maigizo? Wazi kabisa jibu la maswali haya yote ni "ndiyo" yenye msisitizo. Kwa hiyo, uchaguzi katika nchi hizi hauwezi kuelezwa kuwa ni wa haki, halali, au ulio lazimishwa kwa watu.

Were not the elections in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine held under American and Israeli occupation? Were not the candidates vetted by America? Was not the atmosphere prior to and on the day of the elections one of insecurity and fear? Were not the election results manipulated and the electoral process staged and managed? Clearly the answer to all of these questions is a defiant “yes”. Hence the elections in these countries can only be described as unfair, illegal and imposed on the people.

Lakini kwa kipimo cha demokrasia cha Bush, uchaguzi wenye shaka nchini Afghanistan, Iraq na Palestina ulifanikiwa sana. Hata kwa viwango vya nchi za Dunia ya Tatu, uchaguzi wa namna hiyo ungetangazwa kuwa batili na usio na thamani.

But according to Bush’ s democracy yardstick the dodgy elections in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine were a resounding success. Even by third world standards such elections would have been declared null and void.

Vivyo hivyo, Bush ameshindwa kuzipima Pakistan, Misri na Saudi Arabia kwa kipimo chake cha demokrasia.

Likewise, Bush has failed to evaluate Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia against his benchmark for democracy.

Kura ya maoni ya kidhamira ya Musharraf mwaka 2002, uchaguzi wa urais wa Mubarak unaokuja ambao ni wa kujionyesha tu, na uchaguzi wa manispaa wa Saudi unaowazuia wanawake kushiriki, haviwezi kuchukuliwa kwa lolote zaidi ya kuwa ni mashtaka dhidi ya demokrasia.

Musharraf’ s sham referendum in 2002, Mubarak’ s upcoming presidential façade and the Saudi municipal elections, which bars women from participating, can only be regarded as an indictment against democracy.

Badala ya kuziadhibu nchi hizi kwa kuharibu demokrasia, Bush amezitunuku kwa mabilioni ya dola za misaada, na ametoa ukosoaji dhaifu wa kuzitetea. Hili lilionekana wazi hasa baada ya hotuba yake ya kuapishwa kwake.

Rather than punishing these states for subverting democracy, Bush has rewarded them with billions of dollars in aid and offered muted criticisms in their defence. This was particularly evident, after Bush’ s inauguration address.

Idara ya Mambo ya Nje ya Marekani ilikimbilia kuwahakikishia watawala wa Misri, Pakistan na Saudi Arabia kwamba hawakuwa walengwa wa hotuba yake.

The US State department scuttled to assure the rulers of Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that they were not targets of his speech.

Cha kushangaza, Iran, ambayo ina demokrasia zaidi kuliko Misri na Saudi Arabia zikiunganishwa pamoja, imelengwa kwa mabadiliko ya utawala. Hata hivyo, Marekani inajali zaidi kulinda akiba kubwa ya mafuta na gesi ya Iran kuliko kukuza demokrasia nchini Iran. Mwaka 1953, Marekani, ikiwa na wasiwasi kuhusu kutaifishwa kwa mafuta ya Iran, iliondoa madarakani Waziri Mkuu aliyechaguliwa kihalali wakati huo, Dkt. Mohammad Mossadegh, na kumweka Shah – mfalme mwenye mamlaka kamili.

Ironically, Iran, which is comparatively more democratic than Egypt and Saudi Arabia put together, has been earmarked for regime change. However, America is more concerned about securing Iran’ s huge oil and gas reserves than about nurturing democracy in Iran. In 1953, America worried about the nationalisation of Iranian oil removed the then elected Prime Minister, Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh and replaced him with the Shah – an absolute monarchist.

Marekani ina historia mbaya ya kujitangaza kwa kauli kubwa kuhusu kueneza demokrasia na uhuru, huku ikiunga mkono tawala za kidikteta kwa wakati mmoja. Tarehe 12 Machi 1947, Rais Truman alisema: "Moja ya malengo makuu ya sera ya kigeni ya Marekani ni kuunda mazingira ambayo sisi na mataifa mengine tutaweza kuandaa namna ya maisha huru kutokana na shinikizo... tawala za kiimla zinazowekwa juu ya watu huru, kwa uchokozi wa moja kwa moja au usio wa moja kwa moja, huharibu misingi ya amani ya kimataifa na hivyo usalama wa Marekani." vii Kuanzia hapo, Marekani, ikiwa na "Mafundisho ya Truman" mkononi, ilianza kuharibu demokrasia na uhuru kote katika ulimwengu wa Kiislamu kwa lengo la kunufaika na rasilimali kwa ajili ya kampuni zake za kimataifa na kulinda maslahi yake ya kimkakati. Ilifanya hivyo kwa kuunga mkono aina zote za tawala za kiimla za kidunia, kifalme na za kisheikh.

America‘s obsession with making bold claims about spreading democracy and liberty, while simultaneously propping up despotic regimes has a notorious history. On March 12 1947, President Truman said, “One of the primary objectives of the foreign policy of the United States is the creation of conditions in which we and other nations will be able to work out a way of life free from coercion…totalitarian regimes imposed on free peoples, by direct or indirect aggression, undermine the foundations of international peace and hence the security of the United States.” vii Henceforth, America armed with the “Truman Doctrine” proceeded to sabotage democracy and freedom throughout the Muslim world in return for exploiting resources for her multinational corporations and safeguarding her strategic interests. America did this by supporting all manners of secular autocracies, monarchies and sheikhdoms.

Maono ya Bush ya ulimwengu wa Kiislamu wa kidemokrasia ni sawa na Mafundisho ya Truman. Katika yote mawili, kusafirisha demokrasia na uhuru, pamoja na kuunga mkono tawala za kidikteta, kunatumikia kikamilifu maslahi ya mashirika ya Kimarekani.

Bush’ s vision for a democratic Muslim world is the same as the Truman Doctrine. In both, the exporting of democracy and liberty, as well as the support for dictatorships is totally subservient to American corporate interests.

Marekani si nchi pekee inayotetea maslahi yake ya kibiashara huku ikijificha nyuma ya maadili ya Kimagharibi. Mamlaka nyingine za Magharibi, hasa Uingereza, Ufaransa na Umoja wa Ulaya, pia zinashindana na Marekani katika kuyakanyaga maadili haya. Kukomeshwa kwa utumwa katika karne ya 19 na juhudi za kuzipa uhuru koloni katika karne ya 20 vilichochewa kabisa na ushindani kati ya mamlaka kubwa za dunia ili kuendelea kushikilia rasilimali zao za thamani. Kueneza maadili ya Kimagharibi kulikuwa jambo dogo kabisa kwao.

America is not alone in promoting its corporate interests dressed up in western values. Other western powers most notably Britain, France and the EU compete with the US in trouncing these values. The banishment of slavery in the 19th century and drive to grant independence to colonies in the 20th century were solely motivated by rivalry between great powers to hold onto their precious resources. Exporting western values was the least of their concerns.

Leo, kuna mapambano makali kati ya Umoja wa Ulaya (EU) na Marekani kuhusu rasilimali za ulimwengu wa Kiislamu, hasa akiba zake za nishati. Bush, kwa kisingizio cha uhuru na demokrasia, anatafuta kuziondoa tawala hizo ambazo ama zinaiunga mkono Ulaya au zinaitazama Ulaya kwa mwongozo na msaada. Mzozo wa EU na Marekani kuhusu mafuta na gesi unaweza kuonekana katika nchi za Kiislamu kama Sudan, Morocco (suala la Sahara Magharibi), Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, na falme za Ghuba.

Today, there is a bitter struggle between the EU and America over the resources of the Muslim world, in particular its energy reserves. Bush under the cover of freedom and democracy is seeking to remove those regimes that are either pro-European or look towards Europe for guidance and assistance. The EU-US conflict over oil and gas can be found in Muslim countries like Sudan, Morocco (Western Sahara issue), Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, and the Gulf sheikhdoms.

Wale Waislamu wachache ambao bado wamevutiwa na maadili ya Magharibi wanapaswa kutambua kwamba mataifa ya Magharibi hayana nia ya kuikomboa dunia ya Kiislamu. Wala hayana nia ya kuwapa Waislamu uhuru na demokrasia.

Those minority of Muslims who are still enchanted by western values need to realise that the western powers are not interested in the liberation of the Muslim world. Nor are they interested in granting Muslims freedom and democracy.

Waislamu hawa wanapaswa kuangalia kwa haraka mambo ya ndani ya nchi za Magharibi, nao watajifunza upesi kwamba maadili ya Magharibi ni hadithi tu. Sheria za kupambana na ugaidi nchini Uingereza, Sheria ya Patriot nchini Marekani, kuwazuilia Waislamu bila kikomo huko Guantanamo na Belmarsh (Uingereza), pamoja na kuwadhalilisha wafungwa Waislamu huko Abu Ghraib, Bagram na Basra, kwa wazi vinapunguza thamani ya maadili hayo.

These Muslims should take a quick look at the domestic affairs of western countries and they will quickly learn that western values are only a myth. The anti-terror laws in Britain, the Patriot Act in the US, the indefinite detention of Muslims in Guantanamo and Belmarsh (UK) and the humiliation of Muslim prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Basra clearly belittle their values.

Kuhusu Wamagharibi, wanahitaji kuangalia kwa makini jinsi serikali zao zinavyotumia vita dhidi ya ugaidi kama kisingizio cha kutunga sheria kali za kikatili ambazo zinabadilisha jamii zao huru kuwa za kiimla.

As for westerners, they need to take a serious look at how their governments are using the war on terrorism as an excuse to enact draconian laws that are transforming their liberal societies into totalitarian ones.

Hatua kama vile kuwekwa kizuizini bila kesi, kuwazuia raia kwa nguvu, mateso yasiyo ya kisheria, kujikusanyia mamlaka mikononi mwa serikali kuu, washauri wa serikali wasiochaguliwa na wananchi, mawaziri kupindua maamuzi ya mahakama, vikwazo vikubwa zaidi kwa vyombo vya habari, habari zilizoandaliwa kabla, kufichwa kwa taarifa na kuingilia faragha ya watu binafsi vinagusa moyo wa demokrasia huria.

Measures such as imprisonment without trial, internment of citizens, extra judicial torture, concentration of power in the hands of the executive, unelected government advisors, ministers over-ruling the judiciary, greater press restrictions, pre-packaged news stories, suppression of information and intrusion into personal privacy strike at the very heart of liberal democracies.

Jinsi haraka Marekani na Ulaya zitakavyojigeuza kuwa ngome ya udikteta kamili inategemea ikiwa Wamarekani na Wazungu wanathamini uhuru na demokrasia kuliko usalama.

How soon America and Europe transform themselves into a fortress of totalitarianism depends upon whether Americans and Europeans value liberty and democracy above safety.

Machi 17, 2005

March 17, 2005