U.S. Discovers 'Democracy' Only Applies to Nations That Don't Oust US-Backed Leaders
The mainstream story highlights 'injustice and repression' in Tunisia, where Saied dissolved parliament and rewrote the constitution. While Saied's consolidation of power is real, the sudden concern for 'democracy' rings hollow. During the 2011 Arab Spring, the U.S. and its allies backed 'democracy' when it meant ousting leaders like Mubarak, often ignoring the complex aftermath. Yet, when Saied,
perceived as more favorable to Western interests than some previous Tunisian leaders, makes similar moves, the international condemnation playbook changes speed. One might wonder if 'democracy' is less about universal principles and more about strategic alignment. (Perhaps 'democracy' is like fine wine; only certain vintages age well for Washington.) This renewed focus on Tunisian 'democracy'
conveniently overlooks decades of Western support for far more autocratic regimes globally, as long as they served geopolitical interests. It raises the question: why is Saied's 'one-man rule' a crisis now, but Saudi Arabia's absolute monarchy is a 'strategic partnership'? The answer, predictably, is that 'democracy' is a rhetorical tool, deployed selectively to apply pressure where it benefits
Western foreign policy, and quietly ignored where it does not.