To historian Bernard Lewis the struggle between the Muslim world and the Christian Europe from the first Arab incursions in the eighth century to the final Turkish retreat in the twentieth century was referred to by the Muslims not in territorial or national terms but simply as war against the infidels. Therefore, writes Bernard Lewis, the American President is the successor of a long line of rulers -- the Byzantine emperors of Constantinople, the Holy Roman emperors of Vienna, Queen Victoria and her imperial colleagues and successors in Europe -- all of whom represented the "land of the unbelievers" (The Crisis of Islam2003). If this struggle is still continuing then we are in conflict with Francis Fukuyama's "end of history" concept which posits that liberal democracy may constitute the "end point of mankind's ideological evolution" and the 'final form of government" and as such constitute the "end of history".

This is so because the open-endedness of the evolution of mankind, believed by both Hegel and Marx, had reached its final destination after experiencing the enormous weaknesses of the world's seemingly strong dictatorships of the Right and the communist totalitarianism of the Left. This belief is further strengthened by Samuel Huntington's thesis that conflict along the fault line between western and Islamic civilisations have been going on for thirteen hundred years and that this centuries old military interaction between the West and Islam is unlikely to decline and could become more virulent. Huntington appears to agree with Bernard Lewis that the West is "'facing a need and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilisations -- the perhaps irrational but historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, on secular present, and worldwide expansion of both" (Bernard Lewis The Roots of Muslim Rage).

While terrorism in any form can never be condoned and the Islamic world has been in the forefront not only in the condemnation of the nine-eleven terrorist acts but also has been at one with the Americans in their war on terror; one may find it difficult to unquestionably believe the pronouncements by the Western leaders that the war on terror should not be seen as war on Islam. When the US ( with UNSC approval) and NATO bombed Afghanistan to stone age to dislodge the despicable Talibans from power the entire Muslim world supported the western military intervention in Afghanistan. But now when at the request of the UN General Assembly the World Court is considering to give an advisory and non-binding ruling on the legality of the Israeli Berlin wall in the occupied territories, Israel is being supported by the west in questioning the authority of the International Court of Justice to hear the complaint against Israel. One is therefore not totally surprised when questions are being raised as to whether Iraq can be democratic, let alone be a democratic domino in the Arab world.

It would however be unfair to question the intentions of the western analysts if they indeed raise doubts about the possibility and viability of democratic movements in the Muslim world. US based Freedom House estimates that a non-Islamic country is three times more likely than an Islamic country to be democratic. When Samuel Huntington was tracing the third wave of democratisation in the late twentieth century (the first wave took place after the First World War and the second wave occurred during the post-Second World War decolonisation period) the Middle Eastern "islands of Islam remained an anomaly zone of resistance to the ideals that have toppled authoritarian regimes of the Left and the Right" (Martin KramerArab Awakening and Islamic Revival).

Western scholars have often wondered as to why prospects of democracy are so poor in the Islamic world. Some have argued that while according to the Christian calendar it is twenty-first century, according to the Islamic calendar it is still the fifteenth century. Therefore in accordance with the evolutionary process of civilisation the Muslims are still six hundred years behind the Christians. What is forgotten in this flawed and simplistic argument is that at several points of history the Muslim world was far ahead of the rest of the world in arts and science. Where the Islamic world had perhaps missed out was in adapting itself to the changed situation following the industrial revolution and the European renaissance. A glaring example was the Muslim resistance to English education and its concomitant values in the British India till Sir Syed Ahmed established the Aligarh Muslim University to facilitate extra-religious education to the Muslim students who had already fallen behind the majority community in India in most fields relating to the governance of the country and also in the field of secular intellectual development.

It is also being argued that most of the Islamic countries do not possess domestic conditions that set the stage for democratic change elsewhere. In other words the Muslim countries do not have previous experience with democracy. Besides the Middle Eastern Muslim states do not have positive "neighbourhood effects" as the neighbouring countries are already adorned with authoritarian rules. Democratic experience argument appears to be rather weak if one considers the transition from military dictatorships to democratic rule in many countries of Latin America who for decades had seen nothing but ruthless dictatorships in their own countries. Nor does "neighbourhood effect" appear to be tenable if one considers the case of Pakistan being ruled by successive military rulers while its immediate neighbours, India is the largest democracy in the world and Turkey, a Muslim country is considered by the West as among few Muslim countries practicing electoral democracy.

One could, perhaps, with some degree of credence look into the structure of the society of a country resisting democracy such as having a patriarchal society which denies gender equality and also tribalism which dictates "primordial allegiance". For example, the Western society in which the autonomy of the individual is sacrosanct would never understand that in a tribal society helping other members of the tribe is a civic duty and not nepotism. Additionally many of these countries steeped in tribal traditions give precedence to obedience to tribal elders, revenge, blood money, honour killing, polygamy over the other dictates of civil laws.

Many political scientists who have studied the question of linkage of democracy with economic development are of the opinion that democratisation is much more likely to occur and take hold in richer rather than poorer countries. They found that economic development stimulates higher levels of democratic values in the political culture of a people. Researchers have also found that no democratic country with per capita income of eight thousand dollars suffer loss of democracy. The argument is that higher standard of living breeds cultural values that demand democracy. It would however be prudential to note that the reverse is not necessarily true nor that a democratic country has to have high per capita income. India and some other countries that have practiced democracy for decades are still regarded as developing countries and do not fall into the category of rich countries. But then again in the cases of Taiwan and South Korea, accelerated economic growth engineered by command economies, democratic moment arrived along with economic affluence.

In the ultimate analysis, argues Patrick Basham of Cato Institute, in case of Iraq the question is not only the institution of electoral democracy i.e. the right to vote and the parliamentary institution of representative government but liberal democracy i.e. electoral democracy added with the rule of law, independent judiciary, separation of religious and secular authorities, civilian control of the military, freedom in all its aspects. He agrees that all these factors will be difficult to come by.

The big question still remaining unanswered by the Americans despite nudges from her European allies is how to bring back the confidence of the Muslims by doing something concrete on the Palestine question after the Baghdad imbroglio. If the Quartet produced "performance based and goal driven" Road Map is to be given life then discussions on the key issues on border, settlement, status of Jerusalem, and the right of the refugees to return have to be addressed in all earnestness. This has again been driven home most recently during the visit to Riyadh by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak who in a joint statement with his Saudi hosts have rejected the US plan to democratise the Arab world without tackling the core issues that have tormented the region for decades. They also declared that the Western model of democracy may not necessarily fit a region largely driven by Islamic teachings. The joint statement runs counter to Colin Powell's announcement earlier this month of a major international initiative aimed at encouraging democratisation of greater Middle East and to find ways to institutionalise the reforms.

Since a solution of the Palestine problem is central to any exercise relating to peace in this area last October's Geneva accord, rejected by Israel and not formally approved by the Palestinian Authority, deserves international attention. Essentially a repackaging of Clinton's 2000 peace plan, the Geneva Accord is the most far reaching draft document agreed upon by Israeli and Palestinian mainstream politicians. But if the Ariel Sharon government is bent upon finding a solution of the Israeli dilemma faced after 1967 war of how to control the land and resources of the occupied area without taking responsibility for the people living in it the Road Map/ Geneva Accord would meet the same fate as that of Allon Plan, Sharon Plan, World Jewish Congress Plan, Menachem Begin Plan, Oslo Accord etc. The interests of the modern day Prometheus would be best served not by opposing the ICJ on the case of Israeli Berlin Wall but by finding a fair solution of the Palestinian problem.

The world has not become so amnesiac as to totally forget the political obfuscation of the Balfour Declaration, Winston Churchill's 1922 assurance given on behalf of the British government that it did not contemplate the disappearance or subordination of Arab people, language or culture in Palestine. Though lot of water has passed under the bridge since then yet a conscientious world would expect some degree of fairness from the author of the doctrine of preemption and to prove that the men from Mars( in the words of Robert Kagan) is indeed sincere in finding a permanent solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.