Democracy in the Arab World


           According to , “there have been efforts to democratize the Arab World since 1980s. The first year of the 1990s brought many indications of democratization” . Even the most despotic regimes were pressured to adopt at least cosmetic measures in that direction. Both Syria and Iraq conducted parliamentary elections that year, in which more independents were allowed to enter the parliaments. Following that year, traditional monarchies in two oil states, Bahrain and Oman, felt obliged to appoint a “consultative council,” and a third, Saudi Arabia, inaugurated its sixty-member consultative council. Secondly, in countries that took more serious steps toward democracy, including Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, and Yemen, further democratization has yet to happen. To make a further distinction within this group, Jordan and Yemen made progress toward the possibility of further democratization, while the other three suffered reversals.


            It has been reported that since the 1980’s reforms are being made to democratize the countries in the Middle East. However, it seems that the changes and reforms are slowing down lately. Monarchies and authoritarian governments lead Arab Nations in the Middle East. Many of these have been unable to keep up with explosive population growth and development needs. It is the Bush administration’s strategic goal to democratize the Middle East, in order to answer the extremism in the region. In Egypt, President Mubarak promised to further amend the constitution and allow other political parties to grow. But so far there has been no significant change. The government still holds the power and creation of opposition parties is restricted.  Furthermore, criminal investigations are focusing on the judges that are questioning the integrity of the recent parliamentary elections. In 2006, the municipal elections have been delayed. The delay was widely seen as an effort to preserve the Egypt’s National Democratic Party’s monopoly on power. Even Bahrain, which is seen as a model of reform and democratization in the Middle East, seems to be backtracking. Throughout the Middle East, progress in democracy is blocked by legal maneuvers and official changes of heart (2006). 


            Successful democratization is essential to bring peace to the countries of the Middle East. Internal stability, development, justice, reconciliation, minority protection, and popular participation in the political process – all hallmarks of a stable, inclusive democracy – will in the long run help the region move beyond its many protracted intra- and interstate conflicts. The process of democratization cannot be either purely just or purely pragmatic: it facilitates the rebuilding of society by merging society- and institution-building, thus creating the foundations for intergroup trust and non-violent interaction and competition.


            Of course, the ultimate goal would be, as in any other region, to reach a state of “positive peace” – the absence of inequality, injustice, and oppression, and the maintenance of political, social, and economic conditions that assure the well-being of individuals and communities. Positive peace results from the provision of, and investment in, human security – the satisfaction of human needs, from the most basic survival needs to needs for self-expression, general welfare, and freedom of choice and expression. However, we are far from a state of positive peace in the Middle East. Armed conflict pervades the region, in various types and shades: regional conflicts; resource wars; separatist and nationalist conflicts; irredentist conflicts; ethnic, religious, and tribal power struggles; revolutionary and fundamentalist struggles; and pro-democracy and anti-colonial struggles. The people and governments throughout the Middle East are thus facing a tall order: the first task is to secure a state of “negative peace” and to settle current wars and violent conflicts. Although even negative peace cannot be secured for long unless peace building strategies resolve the underlying root causes of violence, these causes cannot be resolved and positive peace cannot be initiated in the presence of violence. The difficulties in pursuing the Middle East peace process in the presence of daily violence between Israelis and Palestinians speak for themselves. Improving peaceful relations in the region is a complex task, involving the simultaneous pursuit of both negative and positive peace, of peacekeeping and peace building, and of the settlement of current disputes and the simultaneous prevention of future ones. According to Amin Saikal, “the end of the Cold War has brought changes that could have been instrumental in greater internal democratization and regional integration in the Middle East. During the Gulf War, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states aligned with the United States and, indirectly, with Israel. This undermined Arab states’ solidarity with Saddam Hussein (and, among others, gave rise to terrorist movements such as Osama bin Laden’s alQaida)” (39).


Then, at least in the early to mid-1990s, the United States became more critical of Israel’s policy toward Palestine, and slow progress was made in Israel’s reconciliation with the Palestinian state. Finally, improving relations with Iran and, to a certain degree, Libya have offered opportunities for regional stabilization. However, continuing international sanctions against Iraq and ongoing bombardments by the United States and the United Kingdom have had destabilizing effects on the region, as do American pro-Israeli policies under the Bush administration, particularly in the context of sharply renewed violence since late 2001. Tensions have been high following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC on 11 September 2001. These events could stabilize or destabilize the region – the newly declared war on terrorism unites many previously antagonistic countries, but it also pitches moderate Islamic countries (which support the United States) against fundamentalist Islamic countries (which consider the war on terrorism a pretext for the West to wage war on Islam). Saikal stressed that “these challenges create a dynamic political environment throughout the region (39)”. The status quo will be replaced by a reordering of the region’s international relations – among regional states and between them and the larger international community. This dynamism gives rise to hopes and worries at the same time. The region may open up even further, or it could become more introverted. Much will depend on US foreign policy toward the region, in the context of three issues: terrorism, Iraq, and Israel. These may well be the linchpins of regional security for years to come. Basic stability and the absence of violent conflict may bring opportunities for individual countries to build peace and manage conflict without resorting to violence, thus creating the proper environment for domestic political change in support of the long process toward democratic consolidation. Further unrest and instability, however, will strengthen autocratic rule and hamper transition efforts and processes toward economic, social, and political opening.


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top