An article by Khaled Hroub caught my eye. It's headed: "The west's hollow talk of Arab democracy".

Hroub's basic argument is that it has been "much easier in the post-colonial Middle East for the west to do business with undemocratic regimes". He's talking here about doing business politically rather than commercially and he explains: 

"The western agenda for reform and democracy has been used more often than not as a threat, a typical message being: 'Help out in the war against Iraq or we press for democracy and human rights in your own country'. An Arab message in return would be: 'Stop pressing on the reform issue or we won’t cooperate in the war on terror'."

While I think it's broadly true that pressure for reform is used as a bargaining counter in this way, I would dispute Hroub's claim that undemocratic regimes are generally easier to deal with. Relations between "the west" and democratic regimes elsewhere in the world tend to run more smoothly than those with undemocratic regimes

In the Middle East, while the west (and more specifically the US) may get on quite well with some undemocratic regimes, negotiating with others – such as Syria, Libya, Iran and Iraq under Saddam Hussein – has proved extremely difficult. That probably has as much to do with their character (and America's lack of understanding of it) as with their actual policies.

Hroub also suggests that undemocratic regimes, because of their lack of accountability and transparency, are better-placed to make unpopular decisions, including imposing "whatever relationship with Israel they choose":

"It is far easier to launch negotiations and eventually sign peace agreements between Israel and authoritarian regimes like Egypt and Jordan, and in the future with Syria, where there is no need for any parliamentary agreement."

This may be true to some extent, but Israel is one of the few areas where Arab regimes are nervous of public opinion and can't totally disregard it.

Hroub says two major issues have sustained the trade-off between democracy and authoritarianism: Israel and the rise of Islamist movements. There is certainly a case for saying that American rewards to the Egyptian regime in return for making peace with Israel have delayed progress towards democracy in Egypt, and that the US tends to lift the pressure off undemocratic regimes when they crack down on Islamists, even if it's to the detriment of human rights. But I think Hroub misses two other important factors.

One is that the US really does try to promote democracy in countries where there is some prospect that it will produce a US-friendly regime, but not in those where the regime is already friendly towards the US. This of course results in double standards which undermine the whole democracy promotion effort.

The other factor is that western policy, over many years, has been concerned mainly with preserving stability and the status quo: "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know", "He may be a bastard, but he’s our bastard," etc, etc.

This was an attitude that George Bush and the neocons initially rejected. "In the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Bush said in 2003. He was right about that, but then he went about it the wrong way, got his fingers burnt in Iraq and backed off pretty quickly. 

The trouble with propping up autocratic regimes in the Middle East (as Hroub notes in his article) is that it has resulted in "marginalising local liberal and democratic forces, even as it paved the way for the rise of Islamist radicalisation". There may be short-term benefits in prioritising stability but in the long term the price could be very high indeed.