The Weak Foundations of Arab Democracy

[Gerald]

THE protesters who have toppled or endangered Arab dictators are demanding more freedoms, fair elections and a crackdown on corruption. But they have not promoted a distinct ideology, let alone a coherent one. This is because private organizations have played only a peripheral role and the demonstrations have lacked leaders of stature.

Both limitations are due to the longstanding dearth, across the Arab world, of autonomous nongovernmental associations serving as intermediaries between the individual and the state. This chronic weakness of civil society suggests that viable Arab democracies — or leaders who could govern them — will not emerge anytime soon. The more likely immediate outcome of the current turmoil is a new set of dictators or single-party regimes.

Democracy requires checks and balances, and it is largely through civil society that citizens protect their rights as individuals, force policy makers to accommodate their interests, and limit abuses of state authority. Civil society also promotes a culture of bargaining and gives future leaders the skills to articulate ideas, form coalitions and govern.

The preconditions for democracy are lacking in the Arab world partly because Hosni Mubarak and other Arab dictators spent the past half-century emasculating the news media, suppressing intellectual inquiry, restricting artistic expression, banning political parties, and co-opting regional, ethnic and religious organizations to silence dissenting voices.

But the handicaps of Arab civil society also have historical causes that transcend the policies of modern rulers. Until the establishment of colonial regimes in the late 19th century, Arab societies were ruled under Shariah law, which essentially precludes autonomous and self-governing private organizations. Thus, while Western Europe was making its tortuous transition from arbitrary rule by monarchs to democratic rule of law, the Middle East retained authoritarian political structures. Such a political environment prevented democratic institutions from taking root and ultimately facilitated the rise of modern Arab dictatorships.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/op...9kuran.html?hp


Note: Published: May 28, 2011

[Bakkels]

That's the great problem with overthrowing dictators. Especially in countries where multiple generations never knew differently.
You can't force democracy from the top down. A lot of people seem to focus way too much on free elections. Thinking that when a country democratically elects a president and a congress, all is done.
But free elections mean almost nothing. They are not the means to get to democracy; they should be the goal.
Democracy isn't a top-down model, it should be built from the ground up. First you need movements like local political parties, unions and all that. So people get hands-on experience with a new system. How on earth would a congressman know how to do his job if he has no experience whatsoever with democratic and administrative functions?

The picture above sums it up very good imo. Dictators may be gone, but they cast a long shadow.

[Gerald]

True,

[MH]

Originally Posted by Vendor

True,

Not entirely.
Many ME countries are bunch of tribes that got defined through dictatorship.
While its still difficult to see those countries as future democracies it would be impossible so without the dictatorship stage.

Egypt is more special case where Hosni Mubarak started as quite "progressive" leader but had to cut freedoms because in part of anti nationalist movements which saw Egypt as part of greater Islamic world.
Also undermining drift toward west.
Actually Hosni Mubarak allowed Egyptians to have taste of pluralism with relatively (me standards)free and critical press and economical freedom.
Husni Mubarak isn't saint but Egypt without him would be in much worst situation today.
Egypt is much closer to western values in part because of him.

No I'm not Mubarak fun boy
Dictatorship is BAD BAD BAD.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by MH

Not entirely.
Many ME countries are bunch of tribes that got defined through dictatorship.
While its still difficult to see those countries as future democracies it would be impossible so without the dictatorship stage.

Egypt is more special case where Hosni Mubarak started as quite "progressive" leader but had to cut freedoms because in part of anti nationalist movements which saw Egypt as part of greater Islamic world.
Also undermining drift toward west.
Actually Hosni Mubarak allowed Egyptians to have taste of pluralism with relatively (me standards)free and critical press and economical freedom.
Husni Mubarak isn't saint but Egypt without him would be in much worst situation today.
Egypt is much closer to western values in part because of him.

No I'm not Mubarak fun boy
Dictatorship is BAD BAD BAD.

But some pieces are relevant....

[Bakkels]

Originally Posted by MH

Not entirely.
Many ME countries are bunch of tribes that got defined through dictatorship.
While its still difficult to see those countries as future democracies it would be impossible so without the dictatorship stage.

Also not entirely true
You make it sound as if the whole ME consists of tribes. You're generalizing an entire region.
Especially in the case of Egypt this is definitely not true. They very much see themselves as one people. Not much tribes there I can assure you.

Originally Posted by MH

Mubarak had to cut freedoms because in part of anti nationalist movements which saw Egypt as part of greater Islamic world.

Well that's what both he and Khadaffi do: they play the scare card. They threaten that if they are overthrown, radical Islam will take over.
Well I'd like to see that before I believe it. Seems very convenient, and whenever the words 'radical Islam' are uttered, you know the western world will be scared sh*tless.
Most people that got arrested under Mubarak were arrested for no reason other than being a political threat; political opponents or journalists.

Another thing; on the one hand western governments openly disapprove of dictatorship, yet they never turned from Khadafii or Mubarak. They only did so (rather late and reluctantly I might add) when they realized opposition to both of them had grown so large it couldn't be stopped. Because dictators as they might be; they have been there for decades, and a lot of big western companies (Shell among others) had made huge deals with them.

Oh and about the dictatorship-stage being necessary; you might have a point there, but both countries have seen decades of dictatorship now. One might argue they are ready for a next phase by now...

[Gerald]

"Ready for a next phase by now..." Which in turn will take a considerable amount of time ... but the main thing,is that there is no dictators, and extreme radical groups.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

Also not entirely true
You make it sound as if the whole ME consists of tribes. You're generalizing an entire region.
Especially in the case of Egypt this is definitely not true. They very much see themselves as one people. Not much tribes there I can assure you.

That's why i addressed Egypt separately.

Originally Posted by Bakkels

Well that's what both he and Khadaffi do: they play the scare card. They threaten that if they are overthrown, radical Islam will take over.
Well I'd like to see that before I believe it. Seems very convenient, and whenever the words 'radical Islam' are uttered, you know the western world will be scared sh*tless.

True about the radical Islam scare but Libya is in sort of tribal war.
Syria is not much different.

Egypt's future is unknown really.
No reform can fix its problem quickly enough or rise standard of living to stop Egypt from drifting toward radicalism or instability.
Islamists had perfected taking advantage of such situations by charity foundations to bring people to their ideology.
Ideology which gives nothing in long run but puts some minimal food on the table.
That is as long as the struggle for power lasts.
Works perfectly in places with relatively low education and economical problems- proven all over ME.
That's why Obama is pouring billions of $.
He is the charity man as contra wight to radicals.
Maybe Egypt can be seen as sort of France of ME but cultural roots in the country are different.
For Arabs moving toward democracy is the same as embracing western values and culture.
Not very welcomed thing in many cases even in Egypt.

Originally Posted by Bakkels

Most people that got arrested under Mubarak were arrested for no reason other than being a political threat; political opponents or journalists.

True but Egyptians had lot of freedoms by ME standards.
You could not criticize Mubarak-sort of like no personal attacks on this forum...

Originally Posted by Bakkels

Another thing; on the one hand western governments openly disapprove of dictatorship, yet they never turned from Khadafii or Mubarak. They only did so (rather late and reluctantly I might add) when they realized opposition to both of them had grown so large it couldn't be stopped. Because dictators as they might be; they have been there for decades, and a lot of big western companies (Shell among others) had made huge deals with them.

Yeah you want to be on a winning side and you have to think of alternative scenario as well.
Besides its about interests VS idealism.
ME natural starting point is not pro west.
When someone in Syria or Egypt shouts "freedom" he might mean it very differently to how you precept it.

Originally Posted by Bakkels

Oh and about the dictatorship-stage being necessary; you might have a point there, but both countries have seen decades of dictatorship now. One might argue they are ready for a next phase by now...

One may argue....