The last couple of months have witnessed an important, if fragile, upsurge of pro-democratic activity in the Arab Middle East, a region of the world where the absence of political and economic freedom has helped produce the stagnation and isolation that has contributed to the rise of Islamic Jihadism.

First, there were the elections held by the Palestinian Authority. Then came the surprisingly successful elections in Iraq (successful at least in participation, as the ultimate results are still uncertain), held under the threat and the actuality of terrorist violence. Next came Egyptian President Mubarak's decision to allow opposition candidates to contest his re-election. And most recently, an outbreak of popular sentiment following the assassination of Lebanese opposition leader Rafik al-Hariri led to the resignation of the pro-Syrian government in that country, and could now lead to the withdrawal of Syrian troops.

After decades with virtually no open democratic activity in the region, the quick succession of these events suggests they are connected, and could produce still more breakthroughs as the long-suppressed democratic forces of the Arab Middle East gain strength and courage. It is vitally important for the United States to do everything possible to promote this trend.

Unfortunately, some on the political right in this country have embraced the argument that this whole series of events was produced purely and simply by the invasion of Iraq, suggesting that the U.S. Armed Forces are our primary vehicle for promoting democracy, and that invading and toppling a tyrannical state now and then guarantees the spread of freedom. A less dangerous, but equally flawed, conservative idea is that President Bush's many speeches on freedom and democracy have produced these welcome events, through a sort of rhetorical enchantment of the Arab Middle East, and that more of such speeches will have the same effect in the future.

Meanwhile, some on the political left, in an ironic endorsement of these theories, have been slow to embrace the pro-democratic trend in the region, reflecting a general temptation to reject anything Bush supports, even if it reflects long-held Democratic and democratic values and traditions.

The truth is that the Bush administration deserves some credit for adopting the right stance toward democracy in the Arab Middle East -- even if it harnesses universal values like democracy and freedom to a foreign policy asserting America's unilateral and claim to interpret and apply those values. But Bush's pro-democracy push relies far too much on military force and mere rhetoric, as opposed to a real, consistent, constructive, and multilateral effort to systematize democracy promotion and economic engagement as central features of U.S. foreign policy. During the last presidential campaign, the Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), and one of his primary rivals, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), both laid out ambitious and comprehensive strategies for waging "the wider war on terrorism" by breaking through the political and economic isolation of the Middle East. Still another Democratic candidate, Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), usefully called for a "Helsinki" style process for identifying and opposing human rights violations in the region. These ideas should be embraced not only by Democrats, but by anyone who understands that rifles and rhetoric are not enough.

A good start for a truly systemic approach to the promotion of democracy is the Advance Democracy Act introduced yesterday by Sens. Lieberman and John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the Senate, and by Reps. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) and Frank Wolf (R-Va.) in the House. The legislation would:

• Create a new office of Democracy Movements and Transitions at the State Department and separate Regional Democracy Hubs at several embassies abroad;
• Set up a Democracy Promotion Advisory Board to provide outside expertise to the U.S. Government;
• Provide $250 million in increased funding for democracy promotion over two years;
• Require an annual report on democracy to include action plans to promote democracy in non-democratic countries; and
• Give the State Department personnel specialized training in the promotion of democracy.

These steps would institutionalize and regularize democracy promotion as part of the ongoing mission of the State Department, instead of allowing this initiative to remain a political endeavor driven by the White House or, worse yet, a "psych-war" operation driven by the Pentagon.

Promoting democracy, particularly in the Arab Middle East, is too important for this country's strength, security, and credibility to be carried out in a half-baked or half-hearted matter -- and also far too important to be copyrighted by any one political party. Certainly Democrats, as the name of our party suggests, should be front and center in this effort.