Beware instant democracy
In the first of a series about democracy in the Middle East, Brian Whitaker explains why the west's attempts to impose it from above are ill-informed
Monday March 15, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/...169776,00.html
Amid all the talk about bringing democracy to the Middle East, it is worth recalling that the first multi-party elections in the Arabian peninsula were held in Yemen almost 11 years ago. The elections took place in April 1993 amid great celebrations but in May 1994, just over a year later, the country plunged into civil war.
Yemen's experience provides a useful reminder that mix-and-drink democracy, just like instant coffee, can turn out rather different from the real thing. Fresh supplies of instant democracy powder will shortly be heading towards the Middle East, courtesy of President Bush and his "Greater Middle East Partnership Initiative", though we shall have to wait a while to see if they are drinkable.
The basic plan is set out in a working paper circulated by the United States to the G-8 group of industrialised countries. The Arab countries and other supposed beneficiaries have not been officially informed or consulted, though a leaked copy of the working paper has appeared in the Arabic press.
The fact that it's an American plan, coupled with Washington's patronising attitude towards those affected by it, has already stirred up suspicion in the Arab world, with good reason.
A more important reason to be worried, however, is that the plan has been ill-conceived from the start. It is adapted from the 1975 Helsinki pact that was used by the west to press for greater freedom and human rights in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. That the Bush administration should have latched onto this model is scarcely surprising, since it fits neo-conservative dogma which mistakenly views the problems of the Middle East in Cold War terms.
In reality, the differences between the former Soviet bloc and the Arab countries of the Middle East are so great - in politics, culture, state apparatus, etc - that it would be miraculous if both responded to the same medicine. The differences within the Middle East - between Iran and Israel, say, or between Kuwait and Tunisia - are also much greater than they were within eastern Europe during the Soviet era, so any remedies would have to be tailored much more carefully to fit the circumstances of specific countries.
In any case, picturing the Middle East as some kind of geo-political entity is largely an illusion. The term "Middle East" was invented in the west, just over 200 years ago as a security concept (for the protection of British interests in India at the time) and has continued in that role ever since. As a region, it exists mostly in the minds of western strategic planners. (For more about the invention of the Middle East, see World dispatch, February 23).
The newly invented concept of a "Greater Middle East" - the target of President Bush's democratisation initiative - is even more suspect. Besides the Arab countries, Iran and Israel, it includes Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkey. As a supposedly cohesive region of the world, this makes no sense at all, but if it's viewed in terms of the US-led "war on terror", the reason for these boundaries becomes clearer.
Marc Grossman, the US under-secretary of state, shed some new and interesting light on this last week when he proposed bringing in Nato to underpin the reform initiative. The military alliance could offer security, disaster relief and support in combating illegal trade in drugs and weapons, he suggested. It might also invite North African countries to join Nato ships patrolling the Mediterranean sea for terrorists, and encourage Arab states to send troops to Afghanistan.
"We want to go forward with supporting ideas for reform, economic reform, political reform, education reform, empowerment of women in the Middle East," he said. "Those things would be so much more successful if there's also security, and Nato has some role to play in that."
The American working paper also gives the game away by saying that the Greater Middle East initiative will address "conditions that threaten the national interests of all G-8 members ... extremism, terrorism, international crime, and illegal migration". In other words, the motive is not altruism but the self-interest of the G-8. While it is always possible that what is good for the G-8 can be good for the Middle East too, constructing a reform programme around the fears of outsiders rather than the needs of the people involved is a bad way to start.
Essentially, what the working paper does is to take some of the desirable attributes of successful democracies - press freedom, transparent government, women's rights, etc - and look for ways to replicate them (or at least promote them) in the Middle East. The trouble with this is that it ignores the underlying problems: why is press freedom restricted, why is government not transparent, why do women lack rights?
On the crucial issue of democratisation, it fails to ask the most basic and obvious question of all: what are the obstacles? Why has democracy in the Middle East not progressed further than it has? In the minds of President Bush and the neo-conservatives, with their Cold War fixations, there is no need to ask the question, let alone try to answer it. The Middle East's problem, as they see it, is tyranny; "bad guys" like Saddam Hussein or fanatical Iranian clerics trample over people's freedom, but once they have gone everything will be fine. That, of course, is where it all went wrong in Iraq. The American planners focused on Saddam and didn't consider what to do about the can of worms he had been sitting on.
There is, however, another reason why the question, "What are the obstacles to democracy in the Middle East?" tends not to be asked. It's too embarrassing - both for the western powers and for governments in the Middle East. Beyond the embarrassment of asking the question, there's the even greater embarrassment of looking for solutions. If there is ever to be real democracy in the Middle East, a lot of people will have to change their ways drastically - not just in the region but in Washington too.
Several Arab leaders have already raised objections to the American initiative and, from what we know of it so far, they are right to do so. But it's no good simply resisting: if they don't like the plan, they should come up with a better one.
By now, sharp-eyed readers will have noticed that I have also complained about the American plan and some will be already mentally drafting their emails demanding to know what alternatives I would propose. It's a fair point, but it needs a detailed answer. Over the coming weeks in World Dispatch, I shall look at four particular obstacles to democracy in the Middle East: the imperial legacy, oil wealth, the Arab-Israeli conflict and what is usually called militant Islam but might be more accurately described as backward-looking Islam.
These are not by any means the only obstacles, but I hope to explain why - in my view - they are the most important and why, precisely, they are impediments to democracy. I will also try to point towards solutions which I hope will be slightly more imaginative than any that are likely to emerge from Washington or the capitals of the Middle East. In the meantime, readers are welcome to send in their own suggestions.
NEXT WEEK: Democracy and the imperial legacy
Reply With Quote
