Western foreign policy, when push comes to shove: Democracy sacrificed for Stability?

[al Roumi]

Someone has the hold the knife that slices the pie, in a democracy everybody wants to be that, and we at least can expect it to be not all too unfair. Wouldn't the Middle Eastern countries benefit from an enlighted despot or even a theocrate who's authority isn't to be doubted, bit like a referee to solve disputes.

That's kind of the point of democracy though, all the seperate parts (legislative, executive, judicial) should push against themselves and hence support the whole system.

With the best will in the world, saying that the people of the middle east need something different to democracy smacks a bit of orientalism: that "they" only recognise a strong man and that "we", by inference, are naturaly more democratic. I know you don't mean it like that but democracy is just a system, as is monarchy or dictatorship. People almost certainly said that monarchism was the natural/most culturaly appropriate thing in Europe during the 1700s, but thank god, we are no longer stuck in the societies of the 1700s.

That said, there are some within political Islam who are not keen on democracy, ostensibly becasue they regard it as a foreign/christian invention and hence alien to Islam. My feeling is that these people are those who stand to loose more from a balanced and hence potentially less theocratic state, so of course they don't like the idea of it.