In early March 2009, a group of more than 100 experts and scholars from the United States and the Muslim world issued an open letter to President Barack Obama, urging him to make support for democracy in the middle east a top priority. The letter - convened by the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy and the Project on Middle East Democracy - has drawn significant media and public attention, including an editorial in the Washington Post which said "[the letter's] depth and breadth vividly shows that the Obama administration could find many allies for progressive change in the Middle East - if only it looks beyond the rulers' palaces" (see "Democracy's Appeal: Will President Obama listen to liberal activists in the Muslim world?", Washington Post, 14 March 2009).
Shadi Hamid is director of research at the Project on Middle East Democracy and a Hewlett Fellow at Stanford University's Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law
This article is a response to Tarek Osman, "Democracy-support and the Arab world: after the fall" (17 March 2009)
This is indeed the message we hope to convey: that the region is ready - and has long been ready - for substantive democratic change, and that a diverse coalition of middle-eastern actors (including moderate Islamists, liberals, and leftists) hopes that the American president will not forget their struggle against autocracy.
The attention to the letter has included a substantial article in openDemocracy by Tarek Osman, part of the debate on the subject of democracy-support co-hosted by openDemocracy and International IDEA. As one of the lead drafters and a co-convenor of the open letter, I am grateful that Osman has taken the time to carefully consider its contents (see "Democracy-support and the Arab world: after the fall", 17 March 2009). At the same time, I wanted to respond to some of the concerns and criticisms he raises.
The reality
Tarek Osman begins by noting that the letter refers at various points to the "Arab world", the "Middle East", and the "Muslim world." He is right, of course, that these are not the same. All, however, are relevant to our call.
Also in the debate on democracy support co-hosted by the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) and openDemocracy:
Vidar Helgesen, "Democracy support: where now?" (17 November 2008)
Rein Müllerson, "Democracy: history, not destiny" (25 November 2008)
Monika Ericson & Mélida Jiménez, "Taking stock of democracy" (17 December 2008)
Kristen Sample, "No hay mujeres: Latin America women and gender equality" (4 February 2009)
Ingrid Wetterqvist, Raul Cordenillo, Halfdan L Ottosen, Susanne Lindahl & Therese Arnewing, "The European Union and democracy-building" (10 February 2009)
Daniel Archibugi, "Democracy for export: principles, practices, lessons" (5 March 2009)
Asef Bayat, "Democracy and the Muslim world: the post-Islamist turn" (6 March 2009)
openDemocracy, "American democracy promotion: an open letter to Barack Obama" (11 March 2009) - a document hosted by the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy(CSID)
Rodrigo de Almeida, "The inspectors of democracy" (13 March 2009)
Tarek Osman, "Democracy-support and the Arab world: after the fall" (17 March 2009)
Christopher Hobson & Milja Kurki, "Democracy and democracy-support: a new era" (20 March 2009)
The Arab world, as the only region of the world devoid of any real democracies, is where the United States must focus its democracy-promotion efforts. This is why we mentioned the cases of Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia - American allies that receive various levels of economic and political support but have failed to make any real progress on political reform. At the same time, the broader middle east and Muslim world are more than relevant for the lessons they impart. In Malaysia and Indonesia, the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party and the Prosperous Justice Party - Islamist parties significantly influenced by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood - are "normal" political actors, whose electoral participation is taken for granted. Turkey, meanwhile, is a close American ally governed by the Islamist-leaning AKP. The Turkish model is one that Islamists throughout the region are watching closely.
It is worth dwelling on the so-called "Islamist dilemma" which the letter (as well as Osman's response) identifies as a major stumbling-block to supporting Arab democracy: "For too long, American policy in the Middle East has been paralyzed by fear of Islamist parties coming to power." We want democracy but fear its outcomes. There is a tendency among policy-makers to see Islamists as violent or otherwise threatening. In reality, the vast majority of Islamist groups fulfil two important conditions: non-violence and a commitment to the democratic process. They represent the largest opposition forces throughout the region. If democracy will ever come to be in the Arab world, Islamist groups will figure prominently in that future. To put it more simply, there cannot be democracy in the Arab world without Islamists. That is something the United States will need to come to terms with.
But Osman is sceptical that there can ever be a rapprochement between America and Islamists, even those like the Muslim Brotherhood that are nonviolent. The United States, he rightly points out, is not so concerned with whether the Brotherhood is sufficiently democratic or whether it accepts the rights of women and minorities. The source of enmity, rather, is a clash of interests. "Pax Americana", Osman argues, "aims to ‘stabilise the region'", and this, of course, includes guaranteeing Israel's security. Meanwhile, "Islam's opposition is not time-bound but theological: it sees ‘settling' as a sin, and long-term jihad...is divinely ordained."
Osman is right that Israel is a major sticking-point, but he paints both America and Islamists in simplistic terms: as unitary, intransigent actors. Between and within Islamist movements, an important debate is taking place regarding the Jewish state. It may be true that individual Islamists harbour a religiously motivated hatred of Israel, but it is also true that beliefs are not always an accurate predictor of behaviour.
Over the last several years, I have spent nearly eighteen months in Jordan and Egypt, interviewing and getting to know most of the Muslim Brotherhood's leaders in the two countries. There are a significant number of prominent Islamist leaders who are increasingly open to peaceful resolutions of the conflict. For instance, Abdel Menem abul Futouh, a member of the Egyptian Brotherhood's guidance bureau, told me in an interview that he is willing to accept a two-state solution, with "full sovereignty for a Palestinian state and full sovereignty for an Israeli state." Ruheil Gharaibeh, deputy secretary-general of the Jordan's Islamic Action Front, has also expressed support for a two-state solution.
Even as an organisation, the Egyptian Brotherhood, in its 2004 reform initiative, affirms its "respect of international laws and treaties", which is the code Islamists use for saying they will accept the Camp David agreement of 1978 without actually saying they will accept it. Meanwhile, even the most anti-Israel of all Islamist organisations, Hamas, has expressed a willingness to join a unity government with Fatah that will almost certainly engage in talks with Israel.
The change
As for Osman's more general claim that America seeks "stability" in the middle east and that Islamist groups can never fit in that vision, the fact that two of America's closest regional allies - Turkey and Iraq - are governed by parties with a distinct Islamist orientation should handily dispel that notion. Iraq's vice-president, it should be recalled, is Tariq al-Hashimi of the Iraqi Islamic Party, founded in 1960 as a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. In May 2006, the US state department brought the secretary-general of Morocco's (Islamist) Party of Justice & Development (PJD), Saad Eddin Othmani, for a visit to Washington, DC. In other words, there are exceptions to the rule.
There is an important change underway. In much of the middle east, Islamist groups are aware that gaining power within their countries will remain unlikely, if not impossible, without US encouragement or, at the very least, neutrality. The Egyptian Brotherhood, the most influential of Islamist movements, is increasingly aware of this; a fact reflected in its launch of an internal initiative in 2006 titled "Re-Introducing the Brotherhood to the West". This listed misconceptions from both sides and suggested steps to address them. Since then, the group has started an official English-language website, published articles in western publications, and established informal links with American officials, researchers, and activists. In an unprecedented event, two prominent Brotherhood moderates, Essam el-Erian and Ibrahim el-Houdaiby, penned op-eds in The Forward, America's leading Jewish newspaper. Islamist groups are devoting more attention and resources to engaging western audiences.
It would be wise for the United States to carefully consider such overtures. After all, autocracy cannot be made permanent. Eventually, the authoritarian regimes of the region will cease to be. An uncertain "something else" will replace them. Western nations would be wise to prepare themselves for the change to come. It is better to have leverage with Islamist parties before they come to power, not afterwards when it is too late.
The open letter to President Obama acknowledges that the US has for decades supported repressive dictatorships in the name of stability. It should by now be clear that stability cannot be bought on the cheap. Tarek Osman writes that "the reward of bad ideas is failed policies. Any project that now puts democracy in the Arab or Muslim world at its heart will need to be mindful of what has gone before." He couldn't be more right. What has come before has often been unqualified support for repressive autocracies, and this approach has given us today's middle east, a region that has failed, and continues to fail, on almost every relevant political indicator. The United States has allied itself with Arab regimes at the expense of Arab publics, at great cost and consequence. Mindful of the failures of the past, it is time - finally - to commit, not just in word but in deed, to middle-east democracy.
Comments
This article is counterproductive because of its
huge number of most dubious premises and claims. Turkish AKP is
massively favoring Sunni Islam, discrimination all others, and
especially persecuting all non-muslim religions. Democratic? AKP also
supports Turkey's signature of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights
in Islam, an official ministerial statement from the Conference of
Islamic States that flatly contradicts the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights from the UNO.
As for Iraq, wich sensible being on earth would consider this an example? Plain idiocy.
Thus, when considering Islamists: looking to the facts on their
policies and behavior, once in power, there is no
single indication of any soundly democratic Islamist movement. Nice
words, good propaganda, but no walk your talk.
If Shadi Hamid would be a genuine
democrat, he would have known that he better brings us some objective
facts on solidly democratic behavior of the Islamists he so obviously
cherishes.
But alas, he just repeats the nice side
of the nasty contradiction between the words and the deeds of
Islamists.
Dear Editor
Open Democracy
As a person with Indian/Pakistani and the Muslim background, living in Europe and working with the issue of Islamopobia, I have been following Tarek Osman and Shadi Hamid’s point of views concerning a letter to President Obama on the issue of democracy in the Arab and Muslim world.
Where as , they have valid arguments in their reasoning, I sincerely believe that first of all, both have to get their terminology correct.
Let me start by pointing out that the word Islamist is a Western media/intellectuals construction to demonize Islam. It is neither in Quran, used in Islamic literature - old and new- nor it has been used in discussion forums among religious groups in Muslim countries. The word is now used in the West, exclusively in connection with terrorism, violence and extremist movements.
So please do not fall in the same anti-Islam ditch as other have. If you have to describe people with political agenda among the Muslim communities, then say so or find a neutral word. We need to make a clear distinction between movements who are working for a pure theocratic system of governance ( Iran),those who want a minor role of religion in the day to day running of state affairs( Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia etc) and those who want a secular type of government(Turkey, Tunisia etc).
This differentiation would balance and nuance the discussion.
I am aslo puzzled that even intellectuals and scholars among the Muslim communities focus a lot on Middle East when Islam is discussed. What happen to 80% of the rest of the world where Muslims make up a majority. It is about time that we de-link Arabs world from the rest of Islamic countries when we discuss politics and socio-economic issue of the Muslim world. While many Arab countries are run by kings, Amirs and despots, many non-Arab countries have practiced democracies.
While on the topic of democracy, is it not time that we in the Muslim world define democracy. Is it only holding elections every 4 years or it is about building institutions and involving the civil society? Then there is the role of the Western powers in stopping the process of so-called democratisation in many Muslim countries. Would Obama administration stop medling in the affairs of other countries and let them get on in building their societies, as is suited best and according to the conditions of the land. European democracy did not come in one day. It took 300 years struggle, lots of difficulties, spread of education, transfer of looted wealth from the developing countries and 2 world wars before the West came to its senses.
Out side support for democracy in the Muslim world is vital but USA can not impose it because people do not trust the West. This issue needs trust building and here the west needs to take an initiative.
including moderate Islamists, liberals, and leftists
Tarek Osman’s assumption or claim that:
"Islam's opposition is not time-bound but theological: it sees ‘settling' as a sin, and long-term jihad...is divinely ordained." is based on ignorane of Islamic teachings. No doubt that there some - a tiny collection of Bin Ladens, Al-Zahawaris and the likes who have a misguided notion of an Islamic Khalafat but what does that have to do with 1.5 billion Muslims or the religion itself.
Tarek Osman must be aware that wide spread Western Islamophobia and hatred of Muslims is historical and is practiced because of are many reasons;
Historically, Europe always felt threatened by Islam’s military power, first by the Arab invasion of Southern Europe and later Ottoman empire’s occupation of half of Europe, until Vienna.
Ideologically, many intellectuals and academics in the west -both left and right wing - feel that Islam poses a challenge to western cultural domination, democratic systems and way of life. They believe that Islamic traditions are inferior,primitive and unworthy to discuss
Then there is economic consideration. Muslim countries control 60% oil and gas reserves. Western living standrad can not survive without this oil. To keep oil supplies open,the West needs to control it and to justify its presence, it creates conflicts and wars in the Middle East.
Politically Muslims can not be any more subjugated. There are 1.5 billion of them. They have 60 countries and in time would demand influence and power in the world affairs. This situation poses a threat to the western domination of 200 years.
And finally, there is a question of religious competition. Islam is now the second largest religion in the world. Christianity is loosing followers while Islam is growing faster. It means less money and power for the church.
If we put all these factors together, a clear pattern emerges. Power élites in the west can only win if they present a horrible picture of Islam and Muslims to their populations. Islam as an enemy is a tool to suppress the rights of ordinary people.
Kind regards
Bashy Quraishy
Chair - ENAR Advisory Council-Brussels
Chair - Jewish Muslim Platform-Brussels
Mobile. 0045 40154771.
Tel&Fax. 0045 38881977
www.bashy.dk
I am concerned that Shadi Hamid has topped his rogue's list of countries needing democratizing -with Egypt! I'm an ex-pat American, teach English in Moscow and have just returned from my 6th visit to Egypt in the past few years with my Russian girlfriend. We stayed in Cairo as well as Hurghada and Sharm El Sheik. I found Egyptian people I met to be very friendly and fair minded, even when discussing Israel. And they do not appear to feel particularly oppressed by the Mbarak regime. Admittedly there are a lot of police about but that is a good thing, what with a few Hamas sympathizers ready to make trouble as well as the occasional individual bomb thrower. (We visited Khan El Khalili and Sharm El Sheik bazaar, luckily when no bombs were being thrown). The Western media is far too hooked on judging a country by its political set up. They should try rather to assess democracy in Egypt by talking more with ordinary people in the street. In Egypt people have long been very tolerant of other's religion. Actually there is more public ostentatious praying on prayer mats in London's Speaker's Corner than in Egypt. Few Egyptians pay that much attention to the imams intoning on loudspeakers everywhere. They are more interested in speaking English with foreigners. So I think the media and Obama should go easy on continuing Bush's crusade to "spread democracy." Certainly in Egypt. Probably also in Morocco and Tunisia, countries I have also visited. If anything it is American bureaucracy which needs to be democratized.
The constant western need for oil leads western governments towards supporting any status quo government in any oil producing state, no matter how oppressive or corrupt. The problem with this obvious expression of self-interest is that the west is then identified with oppression and corruption. The west needs to support democratisation on a broad basis, to make clear to middle eastern populations that the west is not complicit in oppression and corruption out of choice. The fall of the Shah of Iran illustrates the long run dangers in not developing democracy.
This cannot be left to the international oil companies that devote less than one percent of investment to social development programmes.
I would be very sceptical. Islamists see democracy as a tool to obtain power and will mouth whatis necessary to achive this. Democracy is much more than having a general election - something that few on this site to support democracy seem to understand. It also includes equal civil rights for minorities and women, a concept of a loyal opposition, commitment to rule of law, separation of leadership positions from the occupants (not as in Zambia for example), free speech, repeat scheduled elections where the incumbents do not control the election process, and respect for other democratic societies.
Of these, Islamists - as in Gaza - would only conditionally accept the first. That is, an election they can win. The whole Islamist philosophy of society prevents the existence of other attributes of democracy.
Beware of the Islamist version of one person, one vote, one time!
"The Arab world, as the only region of the world devoid of any real democracies"
Iraq is a democracy, and a functioning one I might add. Lebanon too has not only participatory politics, but constitutionally protected freedoms.
"'For too long, American policy in the Middle East has been paralyzed by fear of Islamist parties coming to power.' We want democracy but fear its outcomes."
This is why I pointed you back to Zakaria's article, which I hope will get through to you before you go cheering the next Islamic revolution, this time on the Mediterranean. The fear, a very real fear backed up by examples in Pakistan and Iran, is that Islamist parties once elected quickly reveal themselves to be both as corrupt and inept as their predecessors, with the added spin of being hostile to the West, destabilizing in the regions where they are found, and illiberal and repressive at home.
"... even those like the Muslim Brotherhood that are nonviolent."
Let's not even get into the history of the brotherhood.
"'Pax Americana', Osman argues, 'aims to ‘stabilise the region', and this, of course, includes guaranteeing Israel's security."
While stabilizing the region might include securing Israel's securtiy, I can assure you that Iran has done more than any country to destabilize the current government in Baghdad and Pakistan has done more to destabilize as much of Afghanistan than any Arab regime could hope to do. Arab governments, autocratic or semi-autocratic governments, like Morocco, Jordan and hell, even Saudi Arabia, see an Islamist takeover of the upper echelons of state as having the very real potential for creating a large scale tip of the scales in the region. The problem with this whole, let them vote now nonsense, has been shown time and again in every region of the globe, and that's not a hyperbole. Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa have all seen open elections bring autocrats or dictators who, unsurprisingly, were approved of by the majority of voters which brought them to power. However in the countries and territories where this has happened, the resultant regimes couldn't even in the most farcical estimation be deemed democratic. They are simply elected governments. And herein lies a distinction which must be made, political-democracy and constitutional democracy must be tweezed from one another. The latter ensures the peaceful and law-abiding nature of the former. Democracy, without constitutionally guaranteed, and legally enforced freedoms, merely breeds unstable goverments shrouded in the mantle of legitimacy. Take Hugo Chavez's Venezuela as a top example.
"Over the last several years, I have spent nearly eighteen months in Jordan and Egypt, interviewing and getting to know most of the Muslim Brotherhood's leaders in the two countries. There are a significant number of prominent Islamist leaders who are increasingly open to peaceful resolutions of the conflict."
Not to belittle your studies or call these men filthy liars, but Khomeini gave any numbers of interviews about peaceful resolutions, rights for citizens, and participatory government. Speeches too. You'd be well served to read them. While the Muslim Brotherhood is not a group of Khomeinists, neither were the majority of people who brought Khomeini to power or helped entrench the Islamic Republic.
I by no means support repressive dictatorships and think a less repressive, more effective dictatorship in Egypt, on the Jordanian model, would best serve the country. Given the growing GDP which coincides with an equally exponential unemployment rate and burgeoning, disenfranchised population, someone has to do something. The fear is that if Islamists come to power in Egypt, they'll follow a pattern similar to Iran's, which will entrench an illiberal, repressive regime no better than the one it replaces, which will also be a regional destabilizing force.
Now is as good a time as any to revisit Farid Zakaria's articles on illiberal democracies and consider the ramifications of his findings for democratic developments in the Middle East. If I understand his conclusion correctly, states like Dubai, or present-day Iraq, hold out the greatest hope for being sources of liberal evolution in the Arab world. While Dubai's government may be autocratic and effectively non-participatory, it's liberalization of what constitute acceptable social mores will eventually lead to basic constitutional liberalism which in turn can be a base for participatory-democratic reforms. Democratic reforms where they have occured in the Middle East have brought no shortage of non-democratic, which is to say illiberal, elements to power.
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/other/democracy.html
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/interviews/hir.html
- Show quoted text -
Post new comment