Thursday, September 08, 2005
Democracy in the Arab world
The Economist has an interesting piece on the democracy movement in the Arab world. On whether Arabs have a sufficiently developed civil society to participate in representative government:
For more on this, see the inspiring coverage coming from Egyptian blogger Big Pharoah here, here, and especially here.
On the inconsistency of American policy:
And yet...
As the winds, or at least breezes, of change sweep the Arab world, anti-Bush critics of American policy in the region have switched from claiming that the Arabs are incapable of democracy to arguing that democracy will not favor American interests. See, for example, this article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. This argument will also collapse in the fullness of time, as I will discuss in a subsequent post.
CWCID: Saw the Economist link on Instapundit.
UPDATE: Then again, there's the Scrappleface perspective.
UPDATE: 'Iraq's Sunnis register to vote in droves'. The Commissar says it best:
Indeed. Voting is important because it confers legitimacy. Whether the new constitution is accepted or rejected, the decision will be palpably legitimate. Iraqis -- and, we can only hope, growing numbers of Arabs elsewhere -- will understand that it was their decision. In fact, it is possible that the best result would be rejection of this constitution, because there would not then be any argument that the Iraqi constitution was imposed by the United States. If the denouement were new parliamentary elections with full Sunni participation and a new negotiation next year, the ultimate result might well be more durable.
“I’ve toured 15 out of 26 governorates, and not one single pane of glass was broken,” declared Ayman Nour, the youngest presidential challenger [in Egypt's election]. “So how come we’ve been told for 24 years that we need riot police and emergency laws, that we aren’t ready for democracy?”
For more on this, see the inspiring coverage coming from Egyptian blogger Big Pharoah here, here, and especially here.
On the inconsistency of American policy:
True enough, American pressure for democratisation has been inconsistent. The much-touted American aid programme meant to promote reform, the Middle East Partnership Initiative, gets less cash in a year than what America spends in Iraq in a day. Washington bureaucracy delayed funds for some democracy activists in Egypt. Others that did get American money include groups seeking to monitor the elections, but a quasi-official election commission blocked them from doing the job.
American policy priorities have also clashed with reformist goals. Pursuing terrorism by “rendering” suspects to torture-prone governments undercuts the many local groups lobbying to end such practices. Rather than being hailed as a model for pluralism, Iraq is widely seen as a chaos to be avoided. Many Arabs view its new constitution as the outcome of an American plot to divide and rule. Most Arab reformers warm much more to the caustic critiques of American filmmaker Michael Moore than to George Bush’s “forward strategy of freedom”. Most believe that when push comes to shove, America’s thirst for oil will exceed its democratic principles.
And yet...
Yet there is little doubt that American influence has helped to tip the balance of regional forces in favour of reform. A coincidence, perhaps, but it was shortly after Condoleezza Rice, America’s secretary of state, abruptly cancelled a scheduled visit to Egypt that Mr Mubarak announced his initiative to hold contested presidential elections. [See our discussion of this here. - ed.] Later, speaking in Cairo, Ms Rice won over even a few Egyptian sceptics by appealing to their pride, suggesting that their country should lead the region in political progress as it has led before in pursuing peace. Lebanon’s dramatic overthrow of veiled Syrian rule this spring was only made possible by American-led moves to de-claw and isolate Syria’s regime. And these moves were made possible, in turn, by the toppling of Saddam Hussein.
As the winds, or at least breezes, of change sweep the Arab world, anti-Bush critics of American policy in the region have switched from claiming that the Arabs are incapable of democracy to arguing that democracy will not favor American interests. See, for example, this article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. This argument will also collapse in the fullness of time, as I will discuss in a subsequent post.
CWCID: Saw the Economist link on Instapundit.
UPDATE: Then again, there's the Scrappleface perspective.
UPDATE: 'Iraq's Sunnis register to vote in droves'. The Commissar says it best:
I know the Sunnis are registering with the intention of rejecting the constitution. Good. They are involved in the political process, using “ballots, not bullets.” If the constitution does not pass in October, the transitional law provides for that.
I’m not one to bally-hoo every new soccer field and every new pledge for a few million dollars as “good news from Iraq,” but this development really is, regardless of how the media will spin it.
Indeed. Voting is important because it confers legitimacy. Whether the new constitution is accepted or rejected, the decision will be palpably legitimate. Iraqis -- and, we can only hope, growing numbers of Arabs elsewhere -- will understand that it was their decision. In fact, it is possible that the best result would be rejection of this constitution, because there would not then be any argument that the Iraqi constitution was imposed by the United States. If the denouement were new parliamentary elections with full Sunni participation and a new negotiation next year, the ultimate result might well be more durable.
0 Comments:
