One principal problem keeps arising as the Middle East inches toward democracy: Could armed factions outside the state’s monopoly on power be part of the democratic game? Should they be allowed to take part in elections?

In southern Iraq, lax attitude by British troops helped three competing Shiite groups to remain armed and grow in power, leading to a confrontation last week that has the potential of becoming the next dangerous flashpoint in Iraq’s obstacle course to democracy. In Lebanon, the heavily armed Hezbollah has the potential to reverse the Cedar Revolution. Hamas threatens to nip in the bud any possible dividend from Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza.

Secretary of State Rice, in a Turtle Bay appearance last week, said she supported a statement read by Secretary-General Annan regarding armed factions. “Ultimately,” it said, “those who want to be part of the political process should not engage in armed group or militia activities.”

But when I asked Ms. Rice whether this means that immediately, in the upcoming election for a Palestinian Arab legislature, Hamas should be included, she balked: “This is going to be a Palestinian process, and I think we have to give the Palestinians some room for the evolution of their political process.” It was her answer to Prime Minister Sharon, who has said Israel would not facilitate any election that includes groups like Hamas.

In Lebanon, France and America were able to push Syrian troops out, achieving some of the goals set out by a Security Council resolution that helped advance the Cedar Revolution. But the other part of the resolution, disarmament of armed factions, is still to be realized. What is the solution? An “inter-Lebanese political process,” France’s minister for Europe, Catherine Colonna, told me Friday.

That approach assumes that participation in votes would turn such militias into political players that eventually will lay down their weapons. Or, in another argument heard among Europeans, at Foggy Bottom, and in Mr. Annan’s close quarters, elections will expose armed factions for what they are, leading to loss of the public’s support. Everything must be done now to strengthen the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, in the January election, those who hold this belief say. Barring Hamas from the election will only weaken his stance among Palestinian Arabs.

As part of an election campaign that boasts it is best suited to punish Israel, Hamas paraded its weapons in Gaza last week. Unreliable as they are, rockets on display were set off, killing 15 marchers. Hamas spokesmen immediately blamed Israel, and the organization began firing rockets to Israeli towns across the border. The military escalation that was ignited will surely strengthen Hamas in its campaign against Mr. Abbas, who says that fighting Israel should for now take a backseat to rebuilding a model state in Gaza.

At least America has the terrorist list, where most Middle Eastern nongovernmental armed factions are members in good standing. Even if Hamas wins an election, Americans are barred from dealing with the group, as I was assured by a State Department “senior official” after Ms. Rice’s statement last week. Europe refuses to designate the likes of Hezbollah as terror organizations, claiming they are also political parties.

Supporters of these armed groups say that any attempt by the West to exclude them from being popularly elected contradicts the call for democratization, exposing it as an attempt at colonial enslavement of the Middle East. This is not a debate about liberty, however. No side is a Second Amendment purist, arguing a well armed militia is necessary to the security of a free state; Middle Eastern armed groups take their cue not from the French Revolution or the American Constitution, but from the Sharia, the Islamic code that they hope to enact as the law of the land.

Their armed struggle makes such groups dangerous for any enlightened government. As Mr. Annan’s statement noted, “There is a fundamental contradiction between such activities and the building of a democratic state.” Once such groups win elections, any hope for democracy will be gone, and this circle cannot be squared by diplomatic wizardry with words like “ultimately.”