Democracy for the Arabs?
President Woodrow Wilson pledged to make the world safe for democracy. President George W Bush renewed this pledge at his Second Inauguration, and has often said that he wants to bring democracy to the Arab world. Can this be done?
For democracy to endure, those who lose an election must be willing to concede defeat and co-operate with the winners until the next election cycle. For example, Democrats have become very experienced lately in making gracious concession speeches. This system can work when the differences between parties and candidates are about economic issues.
But in the Arab world, politics and Islam are so intertwined that accepting a loss may be considered outrageous. For example, suppose that you believe that your party represents the will of Allah on earth, and your opponents are hypocrites and infidels. Could you ever concede victory to the infidels and grant them power, or would you rebel?
The Arab states can be categorized as those with a Good Chance, Some Chance, and No Chance for attaining democracy:
Good Chance:
Iraq. Iraqi voters selected an interim parliament in the first free election ever in that country on January 30. The winners were Shiites (about 60% of the population) and Kurds (about 15%), who are now negotiating the distribution of offices in the interim government. Whoever gets what office, the real power in Iraq today is Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, who wants a state that reflects Shia Islam, but does not impose it on others. Iraqi soldiers may not fight for the American-appointed government now in office, but most of them (the Shiite majority) will fight for Sistani. That is why the insurgency is doomed---the insurgents are attacking an empowered majority. They can continue to kill people, but they cannot win. Iraq will not be secular democracy like the United States, but it will be the first democracy of any kind the people of Iraq have ever had.
Lebanon. Syrian armed forces, who have occupied Lebanon for nearly 30 years, are now withdrawing from populated areas of the country.
Elections for the 126-member Parliament are scheduled for May of this year, and a pro-Syria government will hold power until then. If this regime conducts a fair election, can it win without the presence of Syrian troops? If the election produces an anti-Syria majority in Parliament, will a new government be allowed to take office? (Don't count on it.)
A major threat to democracy is Hezbollah (Party of Allah), a Shiite terrorist group and political party, which now holds 12 seats in Parliament. Hezbollah, supported by both Syria and Iran, is willing to use election to gain power, but is not comitted to democracy. Its military wing occupies southern Lebanon , armed with thousands of missiles aimed at Israel. Hezbollah threatens both democracy in Lebanon and security in northern Israel. If it is not part of the new government, will it accept that government's authority?
Jordan. This desert kingdom, originally a British-protectorate, has been a client-state of the United States for about fifty years. The US funds most of the national budget, so when Bush speaks, Jordan listens. The royal family, said to descend from Muhammad, has the loyalty of the Bedouin army and most of the people (When Egypt made a peace-treaty with Israel, President Sadat was killed; when Jordan did the same thing, nothing happened.) Jordan has a parliament, and can evolve into a constitutional monarchy like Britain (without Camilla).
Palestine Authority. Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) was chosen to lead the Palestinians in a fair election, and he appears t0 support open and representative government. His government is heavily dependent upon US financial and political support, so he cannot easily change course.
Abu Mazen faces three problems: Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, all armed and dangerous and opposed to any peace agreement with Israel. Like a tightrope-walker, Abu Mazen cannot lean too far in either direction without falling off. Sooner or later the terrorist groups will strike, and the survival of democracy in the Palestine Territory depends upon Abu Mazen's response.
Some Chance
Egypt. Since Col. Gamal Abdul Nasser seized power from King Farouk in 1952, all leaders of Egypt have been army officers. Although the nation has a parliament and the trappings of a republic, real power remains in the hands of the military.
Egypt has a relatively free press and a large educated middle-class. With little oil and a meager economy, the government is heavily dependent upon American foreign-aid. President Hosni Mubarak has pledged that the 2006 presidential election will be competitive and fair. All these factors are favorable for a transition to real democracy in Egypt.
The trouble is that the only vibrant political force in the moribund Egyptian society is militant Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood, a secretive militant group similar to Al Qaida, was responsible for the assassination of Anwar Sadat and the killing of foreign tourists. Anti-western conspiracy theories have widespread popular support. If democracy does come to Egypt, American officials should ponder the adage "Be careful about what you ask for, because you just might get it."
No Chance
Syria. Members of the Assad family have ruled the country with an iron fist since the last coup de etat in 1968. The Assads, along with the military elite, belong to the minority Alawite sect, which comprises about 12% of the population. The American invasion and take-over in neighboring Iraq has impelled the regime to agree to withdraw from Lebanon and avoid any acts that might justify a similar move on Damascus. Barring foreign intervention, the Assad regime is in power for the long haul.
Saudi Arabia. The royal family has a close relationship with the Wahhabi Muslim leadership. The Koran is the law of the land, and women are strictly segregated and limited in their public activities. Although the mullahs (preachers) have a virulently anti-Western attitude, they accept the partnership of the Saudi regime with the United States as the price of keeping total control over their own society. It is no coincidence that Ossama bin Laden and 15 (out of 19) Sept. 11 hijackers were born and raised in Saudi Arabia. Although bin Laden was expelled from the kingdom in 1992, Al Qaida is active there and has committed many terrorist acts in recent years. Political parties and other democratic institutions do not exist in Saudi Arabia, and the most likely alternative to the royal family is rule by Iranian-style Wahhabi fanatics. Don't hold your breath till Bush demands regime-change in Riyadh.
Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates. These oil-rich fiefdoms resemble Saudi Arabia politically, except that their people enjoy more freedom and prosperity. They sell their oil and play no role in Middle East conflicts, so nobody really cares about their internal affairs. Qatar is best known as the home of Al Jazeera, the first Arab TV network free of government control.
Libya. Muamar Khaddafy (aka Qaddafi) has ruled this desert country single-handedly since he overthrew King Idris in 1969. He has survived American bombings, boycotts, and coup-attempts; most Libyans have never lived under any other leader. Once a bitter antagonist of the United States and sponsor of terrorism, Khaddafy has moderated his policies in recent years and made serious attempts to end Libya's international isolation. Although a republic in name, Libya has never been a democracy and has no democratic institutions.
Sudan. Human rights abuses by Sudan's military government have been so severe that even the United Nations (usually quite tolerant of Arab misconduct) has actually condemned the regime. No one expects human decency, let alone democracy, in Sudan anytime soon.
If any of these predictions turn out wrong, they will corrected in a future Glazerbeam. Stay tuned.
For democracy to endure, those who lose an election must be willing to concede defeat and co-operate with the winners until the next election cycle. For example, Democrats have become very experienced lately in making gracious concession speeches. This system can work when the differences between parties and candidates are about economic issues.
But in the Arab world, politics and Islam are so intertwined that accepting a loss may be considered outrageous. For example, suppose that you believe that your party represents the will of Allah on earth, and your opponents are hypocrites and infidels. Could you ever concede victory to the infidels and grant them power, or would you rebel?
The Arab states can be categorized as those with a Good Chance, Some Chance, and No Chance for attaining democracy:
Good Chance:
Iraq. Iraqi voters selected an interim parliament in the first free election ever in that country on January 30. The winners were Shiites (about 60% of the population) and Kurds (about 15%), who are now negotiating the distribution of offices in the interim government. Whoever gets what office, the real power in Iraq today is Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, who wants a state that reflects Shia Islam, but does not impose it on others. Iraqi soldiers may not fight for the American-appointed government now in office, but most of them (the Shiite majority) will fight for Sistani. That is why the insurgency is doomed---the insurgents are attacking an empowered majority. They can continue to kill people, but they cannot win. Iraq will not be secular democracy like the United States, but it will be the first democracy of any kind the people of Iraq have ever had.
Lebanon. Syrian armed forces, who have occupied Lebanon for nearly 30 years, are now withdrawing from populated areas of the country.
Elections for the 126-member Parliament are scheduled for May of this year, and a pro-Syria government will hold power until then. If this regime conducts a fair election, can it win without the presence of Syrian troops? If the election produces an anti-Syria majority in Parliament, will a new government be allowed to take office? (Don't count on it.)
A major threat to democracy is Hezbollah (Party of Allah), a Shiite terrorist group and political party, which now holds 12 seats in Parliament. Hezbollah, supported by both Syria and Iran, is willing to use election to gain power, but is not comitted to democracy. Its military wing occupies southern Lebanon , armed with thousands of missiles aimed at Israel. Hezbollah threatens both democracy in Lebanon and security in northern Israel. If it is not part of the new government, will it accept that government's authority?
Jordan. This desert kingdom, originally a British-protectorate, has been a client-state of the United States for about fifty years. The US funds most of the national budget, so when Bush speaks, Jordan listens. The royal family, said to descend from Muhammad, has the loyalty of the Bedouin army and most of the people (When Egypt made a peace-treaty with Israel, President Sadat was killed; when Jordan did the same thing, nothing happened.) Jordan has a parliament, and can evolve into a constitutional monarchy like Britain (without Camilla).
Palestine Authority. Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) was chosen to lead the Palestinians in a fair election, and he appears t0 support open and representative government. His government is heavily dependent upon US financial and political support, so he cannot easily change course.
Abu Mazen faces three problems: Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, all armed and dangerous and opposed to any peace agreement with Israel. Like a tightrope-walker, Abu Mazen cannot lean too far in either direction without falling off. Sooner or later the terrorist groups will strike, and the survival of democracy in the Palestine Territory depends upon Abu Mazen's response.
Some Chance
Egypt. Since Col. Gamal Abdul Nasser seized power from King Farouk in 1952, all leaders of Egypt have been army officers. Although the nation has a parliament and the trappings of a republic, real power remains in the hands of the military.
Egypt has a relatively free press and a large educated middle-class. With little oil and a meager economy, the government is heavily dependent upon American foreign-aid. President Hosni Mubarak has pledged that the 2006 presidential election will be competitive and fair. All these factors are favorable for a transition to real democracy in Egypt.
The trouble is that the only vibrant political force in the moribund Egyptian society is militant Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood, a secretive militant group similar to Al Qaida, was responsible for the assassination of Anwar Sadat and the killing of foreign tourists. Anti-western conspiracy theories have widespread popular support. If democracy does come to Egypt, American officials should ponder the adage "Be careful about what you ask for, because you just might get it."
No Chance
Syria. Members of the Assad family have ruled the country with an iron fist since the last coup de etat in 1968. The Assads, along with the military elite, belong to the minority Alawite sect, which comprises about 12% of the population. The American invasion and take-over in neighboring Iraq has impelled the regime to agree to withdraw from Lebanon and avoid any acts that might justify a similar move on Damascus. Barring foreign intervention, the Assad regime is in power for the long haul.
Saudi Arabia. The royal family has a close relationship with the Wahhabi Muslim leadership. The Koran is the law of the land, and women are strictly segregated and limited in their public activities. Although the mullahs (preachers) have a virulently anti-Western attitude, they accept the partnership of the Saudi regime with the United States as the price of keeping total control over their own society. It is no coincidence that Ossama bin Laden and 15 (out of 19) Sept. 11 hijackers were born and raised in Saudi Arabia. Although bin Laden was expelled from the kingdom in 1992, Al Qaida is active there and has committed many terrorist acts in recent years. Political parties and other democratic institutions do not exist in Saudi Arabia, and the most likely alternative to the royal family is rule by Iranian-style Wahhabi fanatics. Don't hold your breath till Bush demands regime-change in Riyadh.
Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates. These oil-rich fiefdoms resemble Saudi Arabia politically, except that their people enjoy more freedom and prosperity. They sell their oil and play no role in Middle East conflicts, so nobody really cares about their internal affairs. Qatar is best known as the home of Al Jazeera, the first Arab TV network free of government control.
Libya. Muamar Khaddafy (aka Qaddafi) has ruled this desert country single-handedly since he overthrew King Idris in 1969. He has survived American bombings, boycotts, and coup-attempts; most Libyans have never lived under any other leader. Once a bitter antagonist of the United States and sponsor of terrorism, Khaddafy has moderated his policies in recent years and made serious attempts to end Libya's international isolation. Although a republic in name, Libya has never been a democracy and has no democratic institutions.
Sudan. Human rights abuses by Sudan's military government have been so severe that even the United Nations (usually quite tolerant of Arab misconduct) has actually condemned the regime. No one expects human decency, let alone democracy, in Sudan anytime soon.
If any of these predictions turn out wrong, they will corrected in a future Glazerbeam. Stay tuned.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 9:37 AM
0 comments
