Two Elections and a Lesson

In two elections this week, voters tossed incumbents out of power. One election made barely a ripple internationally. The other broke like a tsunami over the entire world. The response to each vote should teach us the danger of pretending that elections alone can make democracy happen.

In Canada's quiet election, Stephen Harper ended more than a decade of Liberal Party rule. It was a significant achievement for the Conservative Party. The Canadian right had, until recently, been badly split. Harper reunited the right, moderated its program and took advantage of public impatience with Liberal scandals.

I'm Feeling . . . Surveilled » Eugene Robinson | As its servers fill up with our dreams, ambitions, beliefs and fears, Google can know too much. It's no surprise the administration wants in on the action. Dionne: Rove's Early Warning Miller: Palestinian Leadership Crisis Achenblog: Jack Bauer's Lesson for Teenagers OPINIONS SECTION: Froomkin, Toles, More

But Canadians, devoted as always to subtlety and prudence, refused to give Harper a majority. Diane Ablonczy, a Conservative parliamentarian from Alberta, offered a perceptive take on the voters' verdict. She said they "want to test-drive the Conservative Party" before allowing it to govern without help. In stable democracies, voters can take test-drives.

In the elections for the Palestinian Authority, the voters also rose up against the incumbents. But in the process, they gave a majority to Hamas, a party that has embraced terrorism and would obliterate Israel.

In responding yesterday to Hamas's victory, President Bush, a man who prides himself on clarity and disdains nuance, was, if I may coin a word, nuancing all over the place.

On the one hand, he praised democratic elections for letting voters send a message. "If they're unhappy with the status quo," Bush said at a news conference, "they'll let you know." Indeed.

But he also seemed to rule out dealing with Hamas if the militant group didn't change itself radically -- particularly its attitude toward Israel and terrorism. "I know you can't be a partner in peace . . . if your party has got an armed wing," he said. That's a good point about Hamas, though it raises interesting questions about Iraqi political parties that have links to armed militias.

From this tale of two elections, it's possible to take the wrong lesson, which would be to walk away from America's long if inconsistent quest to promote free elections and human rights. You don't have to agree with Bush's decisions to believe that an important goal of American foreign policy should be to expand the number of nations that live under democratic rule.

But since the invasion of Iraq, administration spokesmen and supporters have offered a utopian and decidedly unconservative view of how American power could be used to change the world -- and quickly.