The winds of democratic change are sweeping the Middle East, but there is still much mistrust to overcome. According to Middle East scholar Fawaz Gerges, the current stirrings against autocratic rulers, from Beirut to Cairo to Jerusalem, herald a more assertive civil society and a true longing for political emancipation among Arabs. The roots of Middle Eastern political oppression lay in the rise of the military-security apparatus following the end of colonialism. And as Gerges writes, times have changed: "Most Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East are fed up with their ruling autocrats, who had promised heaven but delivered dust and tyranny." Even mainstream Islamists understand the need for democracy to protect human rights and ensure stability. Still, history has left deep scars for Muslims in the region, many of whom equate liberal democracy with Western political hegemony and domination. The challenge is for the West – particularly the United States – to overcome this view and work with the international community to facilitate, rather than impose, democratic forces already alive in the region. – YaleGlobal
Is Democracy in the Middle East a Pipedream?
Amidst the first signs of change, longing competes with mistrust of Western democracy
Fawaz Gerges
YaleGlobal, 25 April 2005
| |
|
Early rumblings: Students of Egypt's Al Azhar university call for more freedom and the ending of the emergency law |
|
NEW YORK: From Baghdad to Beirut and from Cairo to Jerusalem, stirrings
of freedom are unsettling deeply entrenched autocratic rulers, as Arab
civil societies are beginning to challenge their ruling tormentors. In
Egypt, for instance, one of the most populous and
important Arab states, President Hosni Mubarak responded to critics of
his autocratic style by agreeing to hold free elections Although it is
too early to draw any definite conclusions about the nature and
substance of recent developments, they point to a more assertive civil
society and a real longing for political empowerment and emancipation.
Careful support and nurturing by the West will be critical for their
success.
Most Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East are fed up with their ruling
autocrats, who had promised heaven but delivered dust and tyranny. These
sentiments clearly show that there is nothing unique or intrinsic about
Arab and Islamic culture that inhibits democratic governance. Like their
counterparts elsewhere, Arabs and Muslims have struggled to free
themselves from the shackles of political authoritarianism without much
success, thanks partly to the support given by the West, particularly
the United States, to powerful dictators.
| |
|
|
|
This support, of course, is rooted in history. At the heart of the
problem in the developing world, including Middle Eastern countries,
lays the fact that the new elite that assumed power after the end of
colonialism came mostly from the military-security apparatus, one that
is deeply hierarchical, rigid, and authoritarian. The colonial state
invested many more resources in the military-security apparatus than in
other civil-legal institutions in order to maintain control over restive
indigenous societies.
In the 1950s and 1960s, in most Arab/Muslim countries, including Egypt,
Syria, Iraq, Sudan, and Libya, young army officers launched coup-d'états
and seized power from the regimes affiliated with the loathed British
and French colonialists. One can speculate at the extent to which the
colonial state's conduct alienated people further from Western
constitutionalism and the concept of representative government.
In the last decade, the further economic weakening of Middle Eastern
states has brought popular dissatisfaction to the fore. Islamists –
political activists who aim to abolish secular, social, and political
order and replace it with an Islamic one – are the main beneficiaries of
the decline of the post-colonial state. Of all the social and political
groups, Islamists tend to be the most successful in building large
constituencies, thanks to the social and economic services they provide
to a suffering population. Instead of directly tackling the existential
crisis facing their societies, secular Arab rulers have used the fear of
Islamism to perpetuate their absolute control.
| |
|
|
|
Now, however, we are witnessing the emergence of rudimentary social
movements that could dramatically revolutionize Arab and Muslim
politics. These movements – be they professional associations, workers
organizations, students, or women's groups – are much more assertive,
mobilized, and challenging of governments' autocratic methods, thanks to
the power of the new media, which has broken official monopoly on the
flow of information. As a result, consensus is emerging in the Muslim
world regarding respect for human rights, legal transparency, and the
peaceful transfer of power.
Even mainstream Islamists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, the
most powerful transnational organization, have now come to this very
same conclusion: Democracy is the most effective mechanism to guard
against political authoritarianism and protect the human rights of the
Muslim Ummah (the Muslim community worldwide).
Still, in the minds of many Arabs and Muslims, liberal democracy remains
synonymous with Western political hegemony and domination. Democracy
tends to be seen as a manipulative tool wielded by Western powers to
intervene in Arab/Muslim internal affairs and to divide and conquer.
Within the past 10 years, mainstream Islamic voices have worked
arduously to redefine liberal democracy in Islamic terms and make it
comprehensible and acceptable to Arab and Muslim masses. Simply put,
Muslim and Islamic democrats have been trying to Islamize democracy and
modernity and strip them of their Western clothing. Although they have
come far, the journey is just beginning. Islamicizing liberal democracy
is still a work in progress; a great deal of hard work remains.
There now exists a two-pronged dialectic: anti-Muslim sentiments in the
Christian West and anti-Western sentiments in the world of Islam, which
run parallel. Widespread apprehension remains regarding Bush's
intentions and policies throughout Arab and Muslim lands. Many Arabs and
Muslims are reluctant to buy what they perceive to be his unauthentic
and faulty democratic goods. They view his rhetoric as a means to
justify and legitimize his illegal invasion of Iraq to the American
people, as well as to wage a relentless war against Arabs and Muslims.
Leading social and political groups vehemently oppose intervention by
the great powers, particularly the United States, in their internal
affairs under any pretext, including that of spreading democracy.
On the other hand, anti-Islamic sentiment has risen in the West in the
wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Even in traditionally tolerant
societies, like France and the Netherlands, there have been growing
voices against Islam.
While Muslim liberal and democratic voices are concerned about
Islamophobia, they are also anxious about public backlash against
American intervention in their countries' internal affairs. They prefer
that the international community led by the United Nations, not the
United States, lead the drive for promoting democratic governance in the
area by exerting pressure on Muslim dictators to open up their political
systems.
For all these reasons, the promotion of liberalism and democratization
must be accompanied by a genuine and systematic struggle to confront the
root causes and manifestations of the rising Islamophobia in the
Christian West and deepening anti-American sentiments in the Muslim
world.
For now, some of the rhetoric coming out from Washington is refreshing,
and carries tremendous potential for American foreign policy and Middle
Eastern societies alike. There is no denying that there is fresh
thinking in Washington regarding the need to support the aspirations of
democratic voices in the area, as well as to keep a healthy distance
from Arab dictators. Only time will tell if this appreciation gets
institutionalized within the decision-making process, or whether US
policymakers will ultimately revert to the simple business-as-usual
approach with Arab dictators.
The United States could be much more effective if it worked jointly with
the international community in assisting progressive forces in the
region. A broad coalition could more successfully exert systematic
political, economic, and diplomatic pressure against Arab ruling
autocrats and force them to be attentive to their citizens' aspirations.
This complex multilateral approach would produce the desired effects
much more effectively than military preemption à la Iraq.
The United States must also recognize that actions speak louder than
words, and that institution building requires the resolution of
simmering regional conflicts, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, and
reducing the socio-economic inequities that breed militancy and
extremism. Only then may this exceptional historical moment be
translated into a concrete political reality, whereby the Muslim Middle
East can undergo genuine democratic transformation.
Fawaz A. Gerges holds the Christian A. Johnson Chair in Middle East and International Affairs at Sarah Lawrence College and is author of the forthcoming "The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global" Cambridge University Press, Sept. 2005).
Rights: © 2005 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization
Related Articles:
Democracy Won, but do Americans Care?
Re-Popularizing Peace
Free at Last Through an Arab-Western Joint Venture
US Election and the World – Part II
|