POMED in the News

POMED Chair David DeBartolo published an article on Jordan’s electoral law in the April edition of the Arab Reform Bulletin published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 

In early June, the American Prospect published an article by POMED’s Director of Research Shadi Hamid, “Aiding and Abetting Egyptian Repression,” which focuses on American aid to Egypt and its effect on political reform and democratization. 

Shadi also published a longer piece in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas that makes a compelling case for U.S. engagement with peaceful Islamic parties before laying out five components of such a strategy.

Finally, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) put out a paper by Shadi entitled “ Engaging Political to Promote Democracy.” To mark its publication, PPI hosted a forum, “Should America Fear Middle East Democracy?” featuring Shadi, Tamara Wittes Cofman of the Brookings Intitution, and Rob Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The discussion was moderated by PPI’s President, Will Marshall.

The Rabat conference received a great deal of coverage in the local and international press. Moroccan papers Le Matin, Liberation, and the Maghreb Agence Presse (MAP) all ran stories. Coverage included a 15 minute program aired live on Al Jazeera News during its “Maghreb News Bulletin.” The Program also featured a live interview/debate with POMED’s James Liddell, along with co-planner Mohammed Ben Hammour, and Almorki Alidrissi Abu Ziad, an MP from the Islamist Party for Justice and Development.

In addition to media coverage of the Morocco conference, organizers Laurel Rapp and James Liddell authored an article in the Moroccan paper Le Journal, Morocco’s leading news weekly. The English translation is available here.

Rabat Conference Summary

On May 25-26, 2007, 25 American and 25 Moroccan students and young professionals convened in Morocco’s capital to discuss potential paths to democratic reform in Morocco, the role of U.S. democracy promotion organizations in the Kingdom, and US foreign policy in the context of U.S.-Moroccan relations.  The conference was co-sponsored by Americans for Informed Democracy (AID) and Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED), along with Moroccan partner the Centre Marocain d’Etudes Stratégiques. 

The first day was packed with three exciting panels featuring scholars, political party leaders, government officials, and civil society activists.  The second day consisted entirely of bilateral dialogue, as participants broke down into small groups to discuss and debate the issues raised in the previous day’s panels.  The dialogues yielded 33 policy recommendations, 19 of which were ratified in an afternoon voting session.

The conference gave both Moroccans and Americans an opportunity to explore the over-arching issues behind the U.S.-Moroccan relationship, including the role of the U.S. in pushing for democratic reform, the partnership in fighting terrorism, and Washington’s role in supporting Morocco’s autonomy plan for Western Sahara.  American participants gained a greater exposure to both the challenges and opportunities of American policy in the Kingdom, and Moroccans were able to hear directly from American policy implementers.  By breaking into groups the next day, participants were able to really tease out the obstacles to a more successful U.S. engagement in the region, making formal recommendations towards realizing this goal.

Speakers at the conference included Counselor for Political Affairs at the U.S. Embassy, Craig Karp; Director of the Centre Marocain d’Etudes Stratégiques; Mohammed Ben Hammou; Chief of Party to USAID/SUNY Parliamentary Support Project, Julia Demichelis; Senior Program Manager from National Democratic Institute, Eric Duhaime; ranking member of the Political Bureau for the Mouvement Populaire Party, Lahcen Haddad; and several other activists representing Morocco’s vibrant civil society organizations.

America’s Impact on Middle East Reform

US Policy Toward Algeria: Helping or Hurting Political Reform?

by Nora Achrati

Algeria’s recent parliamentary elections - with an abysmal 30 percent voter turnout - are an indication that very little has changed in terms of the country’s democratic landscape, and that little is likely to change anytime soon.

It is tempting to point to bombings and clashes with Islamic militants in the months prior to the election as a primary reason for low voter turnout. While the violence may have persuaded some would-be voters to stay home, the numbers indicate the problem lies elsewhere. The May 17 elections were not a reflection of renewed fears of civil violence; rather, they were a clear indication that few Algerians believe a change in the status quo and a challenge to the entrenched power of the ruling FLN party can be made through the ballot box.

Public apathy and pessimism with regard to the democratic process are reinforced by deep-seated, interrelated problems of widespread government corruption, a stagnant bureaucratic system and - perhaps most elusively - a lack of social trust among Algerians themselves, the result of more than a decade of violent and deeply disruptive civil strife that killed an estimated 150,000 and left civil society and associational life in shambles.

Corruption - real or perceived - has left a mark on all aspects of Algerian public life. Transparency International listed Algeria 84^th out of 163 countries ranked in its Corruption Perceptions Index for 2006, placing in the bottom third of Arab League states.  A recent series of scandals in government and banking - notably the collapse of the Khalifa Group, which resulted in the loss of millions of dollars of public funds, and in which many high-ranking government officials have been implicated - illustrate the depth to which corrupt practice pervades the financial sector. Young people, particularly those who make it to university, are exposed to corrupt practices early on: A November 2005 conference in Algeria on corruption within the educational system identified, among other practices, rampant nepotism in faculty appointments, fraudulent enrollment practices, and the selling of diplomas and grades.

Bureaucracy in education, housing, employment and business has also served to diminish public trust in government. Algeria was ranked in the bottom half of the World Bank’s 2006 Ease of Doing Business Index due in large part to the inhibitive effects of Algeria’s all-too-common bureaucratic snares. Loan processing, business licensing and import/export approval can be tied up for weeks while paperwork is processed. School enrollment and major purchases can also be subject to bureaucratic delays.

Where does the US fall in all this?

United States involvement in Algeria remains largely limited to two realms: business investments - including petroleum and natural gas interests - and security. In 2005 the United States expanded its Pan-Sahel security initiative to encompass Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, directing military aid and know-how to Algerian counter-terrorism initiatives. Since 2002, business exchanges have been expanding - though not at the rate of Algeria’s business with China.

The United States has continually taken a hands-off policy toward Algeria’s internal politics, opting instead to pursue more utilitarian interests of business investment and strategic security cooperation - a stance that has at times been maddeningly disinterested, and at others, refreshingly un-hypocritical.

But current US policy is potentially, and perhaps counter-intuitively, a very useful relationship in terms of encouraging internal reforms. The conditions that handicap Algerian democracy also act as obstacles to Algeria’s economic development, especially in the non-hydrocarbons sector. Washington’s economic focus encourages reforms - bureaucratic and financial - that, in fact, must be addressed before political forms can be seriously tackled.

Reforms within banking and finance, in particular, may be the key to bringing about shifts in government practices. Attracting international investment is now one of the primary goals of government and financial sectors; if Algerian bankers can break away from patronage practices and toward transparency, they have the potential to become “unintentional midwives of political change,” as Algeria scholar Clement Henry has put it, by forcing the government to adapt to a system that demands transparency and accountability.  Similarly, investment incentives may be used to persuade the government to streamline its bureaucracy. These changes in Algeria’s external dealings may have a “trickle-down” effect on its internal practices. Of course, there is also the risk of a situation like Egypt resulting, where there have been strides in economic reforms, but political reform has been limited.

As in other countries within the Middle East and North Africa, the US enjoys very little popular support in Algeria, in large part due to its “democracy-building” initiative in Iraq; meanwhile, Algerian political reform is low on the list of US priorities in the Middle East. Given the wide cultural differences between the United States and Algeria, there is very little the US can hope to achieve in the way of association-building or direct democratic influence, due to its lack of credibility in the region.

US influence can instead derive naturally from its roles in trade and security. Trade can and must be tied to increased transparency in banking, and investment must be stepped up in order to compete with China, which is now among the top three investors in Algeria. Counterterrorism aid - ever more important to the government in light of recent attacks - can be made contingent on bureaucratic changes. The US does, indeed, have a role in improving conditions in Algeria, if  the will exists to exercise it.

Nora Achrati has an M.A. in Arab Studies from Georgetown, and is a freelance writer/editor in Washington, DC.