The Road To Arab Democracy

[igloo]

THE ROAD TO ARAB DEMOCRACY

BY AMIR TAHERI

Email Archives
Print Reprint

November 18, 2004 -- THE Arabs already call it "the democratic show," and don't quite know how to deal with it. Some hope it will just go away; others are suspending judgment until they see more. Still others hope to bury it under an avalanche of cynical jokes.

We are, of course, talking about President Bush's plan for the democratization of the Middle East and North Africa. Bush first launched the idea in a 2002 speech in Washington. He gave it greater flesh in a second speech in London a year later. Last June, he presented a more structured plan at the G-8 summit in Sea Island, Ga.

Next month the plan will be discussed at a joint meeting of G-8 foreign and finance ministers with their Arab counterparts in Morocco. The aim, according to the official agenda, is to examine ways of "consolidating the commitment of the Middle East and North Africa to fruitful co-development and the harmonious strengthening of the process of political, economic and social reform."

That is, of course, diplomatic code language. What Bush means is more straightforward: The Middle East/North Africa region is virtually the only part of the world still out of the post-Cold War mainstream of democratization — as well as the only part of the world where international terrorism still enjoys not only a popular base but also quite a bit of sympathy and support from the ruling elites.

During the presidential campaign, Sen. John Kerry ridiculed the idea that the War on Terror could end in a definitive victory. The most that one could do, he argued, was to reduce terrorism to the level of a nuisance like prostitution, the Mafia and the illicit-drug trade.

Bush, however, is offering something with which to measure success or failure in this war: the spread of democracy. If, when Bush leaves office in four years, the region holds more democracies, he could claim some success. If not, he'd have to admit failure.

This, of course, is a high-risk strategy: Democracy has powerful and well-entrenched enemies in the region. The Bush plan is opposed both by the ruling elites (who fear losing their often illegitimate privileges and powers) and a variety of oppositionists who use anti-Americanism as the key element of their political message.

Why would opponents of the despotic regimes be hostile to the Bush plan? In most of the Middle East, the Islamists dominate the opposition (at times in coalition with the remnants of the left). While these people work to overthrow the established order, the last thing they want is for it to be succeeded by a pluralist democratic system in which they would be unable to impose their brand of despotism. In some cases, they're even prepared to forge alliances with the current despots to prevent democratization.

In 1990s Algeria, for example, the Islamists fought ferociously to prevent presidential and parliamentary elections. The only acceptable elections to them were based on "one man, one vote, once." Their slogan was min al-sanduq il al-sanduq — "from the box to the box," meaning "from the ballot box to the coffin." They murdered thousands of candidates and voters, in most cases by slitting their throats. In one 1996 local election south of Algiers, a ballot box was filled with the severed parts of a candidate's corpse.

Today, the Islamists' fear of free elections is plain in both Iraq and the Palestinian territories. That same Algerian slogan is now scribbled on the walls of towns in the "Sunni Triangle." A statement issued by the self-styled Islamic Coalition of Iraq last Thursday put it plainly: "It is the sacred duty of all true believers to prevent the holding of any elections by using whatever means necessary."

The other day we also witnessed the same fear of elections as gunmen provoked a shootout in Gaza to prevent Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian presidential candidate, from starting his campaign.

The despots and the Islamists fear free elections as much as Dracula fears the sunshine. This is why there can be no progress in this "zone of darkness" until the holding of free and fair elections is recognized as a legitimate instrument of people's participation in decision-making at all levels.

Almost all the countries in the region now conduct some form of elections. But in most cases they manage to make them a plebiscite for present policies and policymakers. In Iran, for example, no one can stand as a candidate unless approved by the authorities. Other countries hold only single-candidate elections controlled by the ruling party. In still others, elections are reasonably free — but the powers of the councils or parliaments that result are negligible. And one or two nations pervert elections by preventing women from standing for public office and voting.

Nevertheless, the overall picture is encouraging. Even the most reactionary elements, which once deemed elections "a Jewish-Christian trick" to divide Muslims, are now prepared to pay at least lip service to the practice.

More important: Elections of an acceptable nature, though certainly not fully free and fair, have become part of life in a number of countries, such as Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen, Jordan, Algeria and Morocco. Afghanistan's first free elections ever, held last month, has had a big impact on the entire region: If the Afghans did it, why not us?

Iraq and the Palestinian territories are set to hold elections in January. Success would be of crucial importance in advancing the democracy agenda.

Iraq is the first major country in the Arab heartland to hold free elections. A breakthrough there could send shock waves through the despotic regimes in neighboring Syria and Iran.

Successful elections in the Palestinian territories would have great symbolic importance. Many Arabs and Muslims have adopted Palestine as a "cause" that can only be advanced through suicide bombing and head-chopping. Transforming Palestine from an abstract "cause" into a living society that can pursue its goals via the normal tools of politics would undercut anti-democratic movements across the region.

Bush would be wrong to assume that his "democracy plan" can succeed through a one-size-fits-all approach. The 25 countries concerned are at different stages of social, political and economic development — differences that must be reflected in any attempt at encouraging them to reform.

Some have internal mechanisms for reform and change — mechanisms that can be strengthened through diplomatic, political, cultural and economic aid from America and its genuine allies. But a few countries lack any such mechanisms. Economic sanctions or a measure of military force may be needed — not to impose democracy, but to remove impediments to democratization.

Four years from now, if the "zone of darkness" in the Middle East is reduced, Bush would be able to retire confident that he has won at least the first phase of his War on Terror. E-mail:

[email protected]

[igloo]

bump.......excellent read

[igloo]

What the fuck?...no comments--this is important

[tres-b]

The article is concise, well written and lays out the problems/issues/roadblocks to freedom in the Arab world.

The ruling class blames everything on us and keep their people starving and mad at the US. Terrorism is supported by the leaders b/c the terrorist stir up insurgency against the US not the leaders. It is a vicious circle.

[jtk4]

the people have been beaten down so much they do not understand how important it is. Hopefully saudi arabia will....................yeah right. People in power generally do not like to lose power.










here is my question. Are there enough educated (enough to run a country) people born and living in these countries to be candidates for election?(I am assuming that the only ones who are educated are the ones in charge now) I am not talking people who moved out decades ago and come back to run that does not seem right, but if there is no one there to run i guess that would be the only option.


Thoughts

[raver_mania]

The ruling class blames everything on us and keep their people starving and mad at the US. Terrorism is supported by the leaders b/c the terrorist stir up insurgency against the US not the leaders. It is a vicious circle.

I disagree with the last statement. Terrorism (aka Islamic extremist fundamentalism) is as bad for the dictators almost as much as it is for the US. Who do you think is next in line - the Saudi royal family, probably rulers of Syria, etc.
In case you didn't realize, bin laden's last message lashed out at the rulers of the ME as well as the US.
Wasn't it Igloo who posted that article about how the leaders of the ME were shush about the latest Fallujah offensive because they realized they would be next on the terrorists' list?

[raver_mania]

Here you go, tresb, courtesy of Igloo....though I don't agree much with Peter's articles, this one seemed to be intriguing.


WHY THE DOGS DIDN'T BARK

By RALPH PETERS

Email Archives
Print Reprint

November 17, 2004 --

IN April, al-Jazeera won the First Battle of Fallujah with lurid anti-American lies. This time around, the Middle- Eastern media continued to mill propaganda, but the fury was missing as Fallujah fell.

What happened?

military fought smarter, employing overwhelming force to finish the big job quickly. After one week of combat, only a few small terrorist gangs remain active in Fallujah — and they're being hunted down. Our forces wrapped up major combat operations before terrorist sympathizers in the media could have much effect.

But something even more important than martial skill was in play: We heard only pro-forma condemnations of our actions.

There was no outpouring of rage in the Arab world. Iraq's Shi'as remained quiet. The terrorists' attempts to shift the fight to other Iraqi cities didn't find much of an echo. Even Sunni Arabs complained of the threat posed to their homes — they didn't want their cities turned into little Fallujahs.

Terror has begun to defeat itself.

A significant shift of perception has begun in the Middle East. Even last spring, any attacks that tweaked America's nose or prevented civil progress in Iraq were cheered from Cairo to Karachi (in Europe, too). Then the terrorists began to make mistakes, as terrorists inevitably do.

The wave of videotaped beheadings appealed to the ultra-extremists in the Islamic world, but the great majority of Muslims were revolted. Not only were the ceremonial executions repugnant on a visceral level, they added to the growing global perception of Islam as a faith gone mad. The beheadings, which soon attracted copy-cats among the worst fanatics, brought shame on a great religion.

Meanwhile, the Middle East's political leaders, who had gloated over every blow against the occupation of Iraq, began to see events from a different angle. The daylight attacks on Iraqi politicians and professionals, on policemen and military recruits, sent chills through the leadership cliques of states where popular discontent is barely contained.

As the terrorists shifted their strikes to focus on unarmed Iraqis and the country's infrastructure, the Saudi royal family, Egypt's Hosni Mubarak and even Syria's Baby Assad began to grasp that the madness in Iraq might be a preview of their own national futures. If terrorists triumphed, the Americans could go home. But the Arabs are home already. A victory for terror would replicate itself across the region, creating chaos.

Syria still abets insurgent activity in Iraq, but is having second thoughts about support for Islamic terrorism. Damascus has begun to realize that governments can't really exploit terrorists, but that terrorists are cynical and sly about using governments. Non-Arab Iran continues to strive against the pacification of Iraq — but this time Iraq's Shi'as did not take up arms as some factions did last spring.

The story of the Second Battle of Fallujah is the story of Arthur Conan Doyle's "dog that didn't bark." Pandering to their factions, a few Iraqi politicians condemned the assault on the city. Inevitably, Kofi Annan extended the United Nation's seal of approval to the terrorists once again. But there was no intercontinental outcry to rival last spring's campaign to "save" Fallujah.

With their repeated slaughters of the innocent, their suicide bombing campaign against civilian and government targets, their assassinations of doctors, engineers and educators, and their un-Islamic practice of ceremonial human sacrifice (celebrated on videotape), the terrorists have begun to divide themselves from decent Muslims everywhere, as well as from Arab leaders who tacitly condoned their past activities.

The terrorists are losing the battle for hearts and minds, as well as the struggle for the future of Islam. That doesn't mean that the United States will suddenly be loved in the Middle East, only that terrorists will have ever more difficulty finding a refuge or new sources of support.

The struggle will be long. Blows against America will still be cheered. Al-Jazeera and the BBC will continue to broadcast lies. But more and more Muslims will recognize that "Islamic" terror violates the fundamental teachings of Mohammed.

Tactically, the terrorists' worst enemy is still the American soldier. Strategically, the forces of terror have begun to defeat themselves.

Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."

[jtk4]

yeah but there are two different terrorist organizations. one is the religious freaks(the red states lol) andthe other are the sponsered by goernments. Like saddam giving monet to suicide bombers and shit like that.


Atleast that is what i think i could be wrong.

[tres-b]

Historically, ME leaders have given support to terrorists-financially, weapons, shelter, etc.. This new attitude is just that, an attitude. I really hope that this attitude becomes action.

[raver_mania]

yeah- I kind of agree with jtk. HIstorically, even the governments that really supported terrorism were countries like Iran where religion played a huge role in government. Certain factions of the Saudi govt might have supported terrorism but I highly doubt the king or prince or whoever the ruler is condoned it. Why would he, as the religious extremists just want to replace him with a religious government.
Same with Saddam - he only supported Palestinian suicide bombers (who till only recently were quite secular), while ruthlessly suppressing religious fundamentalism in his own country.
Same with Syria and Lebanon - they suport the Palestinian terrorism (not in their country) but are cracking down on Al Queda. Syria has captured many Al queda terrorists for the US.
I won't argue that certain factions in the government, who might secretly like an islamic government in place, would support the terrorists, but not he ruling party (IMO).
The moderate countries like Bahrain, UAE, Jordan, etc - highly doubtful if they support terrorists.

[bigpoppanils]

UAE

the UAE has become the Switzerland of the Middle East. It is a banker to all and rarely takes sides.