Editorial: Voters can elect who they wish

The United States can be forgiven to a certain extent for believing the world is America writ large. They see foreigners drinking their cola, munching their hamburgers, enjoying their movies and music. Little wonder that they suppose free elections anywhere will produce the government Americans would choose.

But in the Middle East that is plainly not so. Iran has fairly freely elected an Islamist government. Iraqis long ago rejected the Westernised leaders the Bush Administration had in mind for them, and the democracy the United States is expending so much money and effort to establish there could well produce a religious regime. Now, on the eve of elections in Palestine, Washington is disconcerted to find the party of the Islamic militant organisation, Hamas, might win more votes than any other.

Hamas has been polling almost as well as the secular Palestinian nationalist organisation, Fatah, and the US is reported to have spent almost $3 million to try to influence the result. At least that is what the New York Times says it has been told by unnamed officials. Officially the US Government says it is "working with the Palestinian Authority to enhance democratic institutions and support democratic actors, not just Fatah".

That phrase, "not just Fatah", could be fatal to the prospects of the organisation founded by the late Yasser Arafat. The US seems blissfully unaware that any declaration of support is a kiss of death. Here, the anti-nuclear dispute has become a popular test of national sovereignty largely because the US does not like it. If that attitude can prevail in a Western democracy, how much more potent must it be in the Middle East?

But if Fatah loses the election that starts tonight its fate cannot be blamed entirely on the Judas kiss from the US. In its administration of the Palestinian territory, Fatah's own corruption and internal discords are more than enough to have turned voters against it. On the positive side, Hamas has much going for it. The organisation, which makes the world's news mostly for the terrorism it has sponsored, is as well known to Palestinians for providing welfare and other services that they have not received from the government of their territory.

Hamas, which has boycotted previous elections, looks certain to feature in the disposition of power from the parliamentary elections tonight. It will not be easy for the US or Israel to accept a Palestinian government that includes an organisation opposed to Israel's existence. But Hamas has down-played that in the election campaign and it need not be fatal to a relationship with Israel or the US. However much the US might regard Hamas as a terrorist organisation, and thereby "undemocratic", it has participated in this election. Religious parties are popular in Muslim societies and the West needs to recognise that.

Accepting elected Islamic governments does not mean respecting their treatment of women and religious dissidents, or any aspects of their law that are an affront to human rights and civil liberties. But if this is the way Muslim majorities prefer to order their societies, so be it. Islamist parties prosper mainly on external opposition, much as the anti-nuclear cause has done here. Without Western antagonism they would stand to lose much of their appeal. Democracy never guarantees a desired result. Accepting the result is perversely the best way to change it.