View Comments |
Print This Post
|
Democracy must come from the Arab mind and will; the spectacle of the American bull lunging blindly in the shop is less persuasive than the ideals themselves, re-imagined and made concrete in an Arabic-speaking world.
Democracy reduced to its most basic level means at least three things: honest government, rule of law and free speech.Â
Autocratic Middle Eastern regimes agree; they concede that Western-style human and political rights are not available; but the public does not know of these rights and therefore does not need them. Who argues that ignorance is not bliss!
For many years America’s rationale for supporting autocratic regimes was the promise of stability. For authoritarian Arab regimes it was always easier to resist their public than the USA.
In 2004 the White House expressed an updated view. In his National Endowment for Democracy speech, President Bush acknowledged that any promises of stability in the Middle East were deceptive, and that the widespread corruption in governments is what makes the population vulnerable to Islamist ideologies.
Whatever the rationale, Muslims remain sceptical about America’s idea of Middle-Eastern democracy. They are haunted still by America’s objection to free and legitimate elections involving an Islamic party in Algeria in 1992. They know that democracy which is anti-American is viewed by the Capitol as neither legitimate nor democratic. They also know that superpowers never falter in having designs on and interests in the region.
Most of the 22 Arab states recognize, but do not publicize, their failures with regard to economic and social matters and human rights, and are prepared to consider some reforms so long as power is not given to the people. Television and radio continue to be funded and directed by governments; newspapers, magazines and books still require clearance from the Ministries of the Interior and Education. There is no encouragement of cultural or political phenomena which might embarrass the regime; radio talkback is unthinkable for fear of comments which might be discussed nationally and have a liberating effect. Freedom to air opinions outside the mosque is severely restricted.
The need for honest government and the rule of law cannot be discussed without reference to the role of family structure. The Middle East continues to be a family-powered society: the extended family reacts to external forces as a collective unit. The Western concept of one person one vote is unthinkable; if enforced as it is in Iraq it is untranslatable to other walks of life. Patronage — the extending of favors to a village-based extended family or a sect in return for loyalty –- is widespread. The Tikrit-Saddam partnership is replicated in other autocratic Arab regimes. Wastah –- an Arabic word denoting the use of power brokers to manipulate political situations (e.g. elections) –- is common. Without it ordinary people cannot secure a job; speedy paperwork in banks and government departments are dependent on it, as are tenders for public projects.Â
You may ask: What difference does this make to the chances of democracy in the Middle East?  Almost everything. Job applicants will have to be considered on merit –- something completely at odds with the long tradition of patronage. Equally novel would be the introduction of Western-style regulations forbidding family members from working in the same institutions, legislation against sexual and religious harassment, and allowing women to take a public place in social and cultural life without threat, ridicule or retaliation.
What is needed is a democratic peace –- one where standard democratic institutions are built and through which all can participate and voice dissent when warranted. The people can then address and implement changes in the social, economic and political structures as they see fit, and as it suits them. When this takes place the dignity of every woman and man in the Middle East will be truly guaranteed.
But this democracy must come from the Arab mind and will; the spectacle of the American bull lunging blindly in the shop is less persuasive than the ideals themselves, re-imagined and made concrete in an Arabic-speaking world.
a.ata@patrick.acu.edu.au
Visit their website at:
Responses to "Western-style Democracy For Us in the Middle East is Still-born!"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.



The conclusion is essentially correct that democracy in Arab states must come from the Arab mind, however, when the Arab mind has had no experience of such a system, and as such cannot comprehend it, we cannot expect democratic systems to come into being.
Note also that the elections in Algeria were boycotted by a large section of the population, and the party which won the popular vote proceeded to declare that the nation would be governed by sharia law, and that there would be no further elections. Hardly a democratic government.
Comment by Steven Laib | January 6, 2006
Although you have raised valid concerns regarding the implementation of democratic norms to a culture that is thoroughly undemocratic, you have not shown that democracy cannot be fostered on Iraqi soil nor that it ought not be. The anti-nepotism you note in western culture is not a key element of effective democracy any more than slavery was a hinderance to the establishment of a free society here. Our freedom was imperfect in the beginning, and is still in need of perfecting. Had we made freedom contingent on perfection, we’d have never begun. Yet, here we are. I agree the Muslim mind is indoctrinated from birth in a denial of anything granting free-will or individualism, and thoroughly steeped in submission. Yet, submission and self-negation are not natural to the human spirit. I believe they can only be maintained by a constant application of philosophies that deny their opposites have validity.
The alternative to fostering a democratic system and values in Iraq, is to abandon the Iraqis, part way, in a process already well begun. One of the complaints against America during the first war with Iraq is that we abandoned the Iraqi people to the despotism of Saddam after having first greatly raised the hopes of millions of Iraqis desperate to be set free. Iraqi refugees made clear the hardship and abuse which that cost them. Do you recommend we give them up yet again simply because it is hard to accomplish or will take a generation to effect? I believe the Iraqis have spoken eloquently to this point. They believe a liberalization of their culture is possible. It may not be exactly the democratic system of the west and may fall short of our ideals. So what? Realistic or not, it proves the human heart and mind yearn for freedom, and not for submission. As libertarians and conservatives of the American legacy, we are duty bound to extend and promote freedom to others; and not simply hoard it to ourselves.
Regardless whether democratization of Iraq makes any sense, it has been started. It would be immoral to reneg on the promise of freedom.
Comment by Bob Stapler | January 17, 2006