the arab world and the politics of democracy

FATIMAH A. TIJANI 20121772

1

The Arab World and Politics of Democracy

Fatimah Tijani

Cyprus International University

Middle East in World Affairs

Department of International Relations

Masters International Relations

14.01.2014


2

THE ARAB WORLD AND POLITICS OF DEMOCRACY

Abstract

The Middle East has become simultaneously the world’s most controversial, crisis-ridden, and

yet least-understood region. Taking new perspectives on the area that has undergone the

most dramatic changes, the Middle East. Following the Arab Spring that struck the

Middle East like wire fire starting from Tunisia then Egypt, followed suit by Libya then

Yemen, yet again the course of activities was catastrophic when the processes has yet been

stuck within Syria, bringing to light the discus of democratization in the Arab region to the

forefront. The fight towards a fully-fledged democratization process has been on the

uprising and the civil society in their course shouting and clamouring for freedom of

expression, press and democracy has never been waved aside, although there were successes

where a number of autocratic regimes and "fair" electoral were held. The regime, that

lost at the elections, and their followers, accuse the winners of unfaithfulness, cheat,

scams , fraud and falsifying the outcomes from the election. This is not a feature exclusive to

elections in the Arab world (Middle East) as many democratized cultures act the same way in

identical circumstances (the newest case was that which happened in Bulgaria). Nevertheless,

the opposition stimulated a new spate of demonstrations aimed to toppled, destroy and

prevent the ruling of the newly selected regimes. On the other hand, the elected elites

were accused of wrongdoings and methods that are considered to improve and negotiate their

own rule.

In an attempt to keep my discuss in line with the course content, this article will try to

explain and describe the term democracy in the Arab world, dealing with both historical

and the current trend in the region. The first part will take an insight into the status of

democratization in the Arab region from an historical perspective; while the second aspect

will discuss its stability as relates to the present circumstance within the Middle East.


3

Introduction

Over the last decade, the international community has focused its attention on political

development in the Muslim communities especially in the Middle East region in particular

where the Arab nations have witnessed intense upheavals crisis. The situation became

especially severe in Tunisia where the people have removed their president, and in Egypt

where a million people are marching on the streets, calling for the ouster of President Hosni

Mubarak, who has ruled the country for 30 years. Angry protests have been going on since

December last year. Riots sparked by protests against unemployment, corruption and rising

standard of living have claimed over 150 lives in these North African countries as protesters

clashed with law enforcement agents. The riots were said to have started when a 21 year old

man set himself ablaze as a protest against the poor living conditions of himself and millions

of other youths in Tunisia. This incidence happened in a provincial city but the riots soon

spread to the capital Tunis and the whole country became submerged under a blanket of

violence. In what has been described by international journalists as an unprecedented

revolution, thousands of people rose up to challenge the 23 year old government of President

Ben Ali. Several people were killed, many others were injured or arrested, and journalists

were initially barred from covering the protests. Yet the riots persisted. This was an indication

that something unusual was about to happen in Tunisia. The problem soon became too much

for the government to handle as protesters began to demand for the removal of the president,

who had ruled the country for 23 years. The firing of the interior minister and announcement

by the president that jailed protesters and journalists would be freed could not help matters.

The government even removed restrictions on the media and announced that more jobs would

be created but it was too late. The people had spoken, they had spoken clearly and fearlessly;

they needed change. The height of the unrest was President Ben Ali’s resignation from office

and his subsequent exile. The speaker of the parliament has since been installed as caretaker

president. In Egypt, the atmosphere continues to be charged as the people have demanded

their rights from their elite. The Egyptians have spoken; they want Mubarak out. The

international community continues to watch the outcome of the crisis in Egypt with concern

as Mubarak delicately clings to power.

The events happening in North Africa have shown the world the power of the people and the

effectiveness of mass action. The discus on the absence of democracy in the Arab world has

been at the core of both academic and policy oriented discussions. The successful

implementation of democratic practises in the Eastern Europe and Latin American countries

explains this enthusiasm, impair to the Arab world which contrary to popular believe has not


4

been immune from her push for such embracement of democratization. The Arab polity

regime is yet to face the regime practices with liberalizing pressures coming both from within

and from without. In spite of these political uprising and early trends, results in terms of

actual successful democratic transition have been largely disappointing and very few of the

countries in the region especially in the Arab Middle East and North Africa (MENA), could

be considered today as successful democracies.1

From this perspective, the Arab world is seen as a monolithic entity which is incapable of

dealing with the required procedures of the modern age- and most especially liberal

democratic practices. There is no doubting the fact that, there is no lack of paradoxes in the

modern Middle East. However, one would be right to say that the agency of the Islamic

Fundamentalist Movements is one but a factor that has much contributed to the democratizing

dilemmas of the Arab world. And this has been a fascinating situation because the Middle

East has been so unstable internally while simultaneously spreading that condition outward,

so to speak. Nor has there been any dearth of political ideas emanating from that region. If

this seems the product of my own area of work and interest to say so, it still seems objectively

true to state that this has been the most important region affecting the whole world over the

last three decades.

One of the greatest problems of Arabic-speaking countries in the Middle East region, and a

major source of the above-mentioned issues, has been the problems of the state system. It

should be stressed that more than one question is involved here. In fact, the problems are

worth listing which varies in different dimension, namely:

1. Are the people leaving within this region and within the boundaries of these states

themselves willing to accept the current state situation in the region.

2. Are the elites of these states willing to accept the change in status quo?

3. What ideology and political system should rule these nations?

4. To what level should these states cooperate, combine, and merge?

5. Should the “local” patriotism legitimate or should the primary identity of people be as

“Muslims” or as “Arabs” or as members of specific communities (Christian, Druze, Sunni,

Shi’a, and so on)?

6. What is an unacceptable Western imported ideology or institution?

1 See Adrian Karatnycky, ‘Muslim Counties and the Democracy Gap', Journal of Democracy, Vol 13, No. 1

(2002), pp. 99-112.


5

7. Who should rule in each state?

8. Should the states be seen as too rigid or too flexible?

9. How can the government of the states mobilize support for its own populations?

10. What are the main causes of their problems? Could it be internally motivated requiring

changes in the existing system or external requiring struggle and resistance to foreign

enemies?

11. Does Islam constitute a barrier to the development of the region?

These questions are just but the beginning of the dilemmas that exist, which is yet very

difficult to answer.

WHAT THEN IS DEMOCRACY

Democracy, as a term, is a system of government by which “political sovereignty is

retained by the people and exercised directly by citizens.”2 David F. J. Campbell defines

democracy in etymological terms, as it originates from ancient Greek δημοκρατία

(dēmokratiā), which combines dēmos, the “people”, with kratos, meaning “rule”, “power” or

“strength”. Hence, the literal denotation of democracy is “rule by the people”, culminating

in a popular form of government.3 The crux of democracy is that people choose who

governs them and those elected rulers will be held accountable for their actions and

decisions. There is no one definitive form of a government as democracy can exist in

republics (e.g. France), kingdoms (e.g. United Kingdom or Spain), and empires (e.g. Japan)

where powers of the king or the emperor are very limited. On the other hand Lipset defined

democracy as “that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which

individuals acquire the power to decide the means of a competitive struggle for the people’s

vote,” views democracy as either present or absent”.4

Beforehand, democracy was seen as an alternative to ancient monarchies where kings

and emperors reserved the right to rule and transferred their crowns to their heirs irrespective

of their suitability. What was of essence was to keep the rule within that same dynasty.

Overtime, the norm has changed, and republics and constitutional monarchy appeared as a

logical alternative.

2 "Democracy," Wikipedia, accessed June 4, 2013, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy.

3 David F. J. Campbell, The Basic Concept for the Democracy Ranking of the Quality of Democracy (Vienna:

Democracy Ranking, 2008), 5. 4 Seymour Martin Lipset, “The Social Requites of Democracy Revisited”, American Socio-logical Review 59, No.

1 (February 1994): 1-22


6

The same standard was applicable in the Arab region, mainly in the beginning of Islam where

the Caliph was selected (elected) among other candidates. However, this pattern has

disappeared with the emergence of the Umayyad Caliphate (centred on the Umayyad dynasty)

and survived until the latest Sultan of the Ottoman Empire (centered on the empire of Osman

I.). Regardless of the existence of the Shura councils, the last word was the Sultan's or the

Emir's, and no authorities would dare to challenge to query or eliminate the Sultan or Emir.

Hence, it would not be of any surprise to witness and see the numerous revolutions

and coups, some of which were from within the inside the Palace of the Sultan himself,

during that époque

In the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, colonial western powers dominated

rest of the Middle East region, and they began introducing their Lifestyles, practices and

norms, injecting their culture and inserting their notions, among which was democracy.

More startlingly, they had “assigned” governments in the Arab societies that resembled their

democratically “elected” governments. In 1992, Bernard Lewis referred to this in his

"Rethinking the Middle East" piece. Lewis says: "the word 'democracy' in Arab political

discourse has for long denoted the sham parliamentary regimes that were installed and

bequeathed by British and French empires."5

Post-colonial era foresaw the creation of new republics in the Arab region and the new rulers

inherited and swiftly declared their adherence to "installed" culture and practices. Hitherto,

Arab leaders have included, at times defended, democracy in their daily speeches, even

if their practices were far from democratic. With the advent of the Arab Spring, everybody

was holding great hope for democracy, the way it is practiced and implemented in the West,

as a result of the various anarchical mode of governance that has paraded the region. As such,

calls for adopting Western, Turkish or an Islamic model of democracy started to resonate in

every corner of the Middle East.

Taking a look at a country like Turkey for instance which is a Muslim country is an

interesting case of analysis. The Turkish political system though isn’t perfect in the right

scheme, yet in the last eight years Turkey has undergone fundamental changes in walk

towards democracy. It has secularized its political platform, establishes a multiparty

parliamentary system, and had held successful free and fair election. There is a free pressure

5 Bernard Lewis, "Rethinking the Middle East" (Lecture given by Professor Lewis at the "Henry M. Jackson

Memorial Lecture", Henry M, Jackson Foundation, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, March 11, 1992): 25.


7

relations but a guided limitation when it comes to the Kurdish issues. I addition, though the

army’s role as a guarantor to the Kemalist secularism is somewhat problematic, it is far

distinguished from the rest of the Muslim Countries ruled by simple military tyrants and

dictators. None of the twenty-two countries of the Arab League is a democracy, nor has it

experience serious attempts democratization, Lebanon which could has been a good example

has its system flawed. Tragically in Algeria, experiments at democratic political

reconstruction have been reversed.

As per the second part of this article, one can say that path of democracy in the Middle East is

going through sharp turns. After holding democratic and free elections, calls for

democracy are still being heard. At times, calls have even surpassed the question of

democracy when the opposition asked the newly elected rulers to step down and resign; with

no major crisis the new governments bear the brunt. The new rulers were also accused of

enhancing and consolidating their rule indefinitely, through illegal practices, including the

appointment of their members and followers in key positions in the state, and arming their

supporters. Hence, the concept and understanding of democracy, on both sides, is

distorted, and the exercise lacks the correct parameters. In this vein, I tend to disagree with

those who limit the causes of these conditions to external factors solely. Although this

argument is realistic, the main reasons behind this state of affairs are clearly internal.

Firstly, the communal environment in the Arab world is neither ideal nor ready for a proper

application of democracy. Since the death of the fourth Caliphs Imam Ali Bin Abi Talib-

1352 years ago, the region has not practiced sound democracy, especially when it comes

to choosing the rulers. Although rulers claim their staunch adherence and support of

democracy, their actions were absolutely the opposite, which led to a deterioration of the

conditions of democracy in the Arab world.

Communal preparedness is critical, and without the suitable environment in the

communities that existed during Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Revolution and in the other

Central and Eastern European states at the fall of Communism, revolutions would not

have succeeded in transferring these societies into democratic states. In her attempt to

compare the successful Eastern European revolutions and the Arab Spring, Ziya Öniş says,

at the "Working Together for Democracy in the Arab world" workshop organized by USAK;


8

"the domestic nature of the political system, where the civil society had already been

developed, and an elite convergence for democracy is absent in the Arab world."6

The second reason is the haste and passion of Arabs to attain a democracy similar to that one

in other countries. This candour was reflected in the demands for the adoption of foreign

democracies, models, and at times constitutions and institutions of particular countries. One

can argue that taking historical short-cuts is not always successful as there is no guarantee that

copying other models would bear fruitful results. In other words, learning from the

experience of others is helpful, albeit each community has its own peculiarities and conditions

which are reflected in the necessity of building one's own experience. Europe has paid a

heavy price, including wars and revolutions, built on its own experience until it laid the

foundations of its own democracy. Turks themselves have acknowledged this fact and have

said that they have paid a big price to develop their own brand of democracy. Erşat Hürmüzlü,

chief advisor to the Turkish president, said at the same USAK workshop that Turks have

designed their own destiny, including democratic standards and institutions, to uphold the

rights of individuals. Hürmüzlü also admitted that along the path to democracy in Turkey,

many mistakes were made but that learning from those mistakes was the best tool to ensure

better results7.

It would be misleading to overlook the emergence of the “civil society” in this region in the

last few decades as without precedent. No doubt the Middle East presents itself a complex

web of social ‘structures’ which sustain irregularity when the central government remains

ineffective or oppressive. The emergence of the civil society in this region who believes they

have been neglected by the autocratic class has been overlooked by international observers

therefore seek the intervention of the western civil society. As Richard Tapper argues, “tribal”

region of the Middle East, rather than being regions of disorder, often offered more

opportunities for peace and a just social order than were available through submission to state

authorities8

6 Ziya Öniş, "Working Together for Democracy in the Arab World" (An intervention by Professor Dr. Ziya Öniş at

the proceedings of the Working Together for Democracy in the Arab World workshop, International Strategic Research Organization 'USAK', Ankara, Turkey, October 27, 2011):47-48. 7 Erşat Hürmüzlü, "Working Together for Democracy in the Arab World" (An intervention n by Mr Erşat

Hürmüzlü at the proceedings of the Working Together for Democracy in the Arab World workshop, International Strategic Research Organization 'USAK', Ankara, Turkey, October 27, 2011):39-42. 8 Richard Tapper, "Anthropologists, Historians, and Tribespeople on Tribe and State Formation in the Middle

East, "in Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East, eds. Philip S. Khoury and Joseph Kostiner (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990), pp. 48-73


9

In nutshell, one can say that democratic process is very similar everywhere but the nuance lies

in the experiences of every society in developing a democracy of its own. As old habits die

hard, it will take Arabs some time, flip-flopping and hesitation to overcome the

problems caused by their infamous dictators and hence develop their own democracies. The

present upheavals in the Arab world are part of the process of Arabs building their own

experience in exploring the path towards an independent democratic choice. But this is a

mere drop in the ocean; the longer the process lasts and dawdles, the more susceptible the

resources of moderation, enthusiasm and hope are to depletion. The current Syrian turmoil is

just one case in point.

However, this does not depict that the civil society can be created by edict, although

government bodies in power regularly creates secret organisations to challenge and supplant

these autonomous organizations. For instance, in Sudan, the regime has systematically

manoeuvre the elections and strong armed those who are against it, thus the emasculated

union were no more than an extension of that regime.

On the other hand, while in Algeria, Jordan, Sudan and Yemen, the civil society has shown

active growth and participation, though the nascent organisation lack inclusive memberships.

Focusing on the case of Algeria, Entelis argues that over the extraordinary period of four

years, the civil society was on the verge of attaining maturity, which to say reaching a close

relationship with the state. Indeed, it has been debated by a variety of authors (Pipes, 1983a

and 1983b; Huntington, 1984; Perlmutter, 1992; and Kedourie, 1984) that “the political,

economic and cultural conditions prevalent in individual states of the region did not anyway

towards the encouragement of a developmental Liberal democratic models of politics and

government.9

Democratization/Liberalization: A Case of Old Politics, New Problems

As earlier discussed democratization, Political liberation and the promotion of a liberal

democratic system in the Middle East has been in the lime light since the 1990s following the

end of the Cold war. This has possess an urgent attention to scholars who are following

incidence in the region, proposing new turn for legitimacy and change for many regime. In

reality though, while many has ruled out any prospect for democracy in the region, arguing

that the combined forces of Arabism and Muslim political culture prominent in the region

makes it exceptional for democracy or democratization of the region as it were. These debates

9 Milton-Edwards, B. (2000). Contemporary politics in the Middle East. Polity Press.


10

have led to a concept of exceptionalism: ‘the idea of an Arab or Islamic exceptionalism thus

emerged in the minds of western proponents of democracy and present orientalist’.10

An

example of the orientalist perspective can be seen from what Lewis (1993a) works, he argues

that the gap between the Arab and the west notion of ‘freedom’ highlights the yearnings of

these cultures for the great need for democratic structures seeing the basic advantages it has

embedded in western societies. As such many states in the region have been seen to have

taken the bold step towards some forms of political liberalisation process such as more open

elections which is witness in Jordan, Yemen, Egypt, Algeria, Iran, to name a few. There is no

doubting the fact that indeed majority of the people i.e. civil society is akin at getting a better

democratization. However also, important to note that, the process of democratization cannot

truly be realized without the liberalization of political systems, government and structures vis-

à-vis liberalization. Though, vividly seen with the recent developmental processes of reform

taking place especially in a politically diverse country as Syria and Saudi Arabia, Egypt,

Tunisia are sign in the right direction of a country walking towards liberalization and

democratization.

Democracy, meanwhile as I have earlier discussed enjoys a relationship with the process of

liberalization. Democratic socialism on the other hand promotes an agenda which often than

not at odd with liberal democracy as it is currently understood. Nonetheless, the term in

respect to the Middle East is currently interpreted and understood in a different dimension. As

it can be seen, democrats in Algeria are way different from those in Israel. It therefore means

that, democracy largely interprets the processes of electoral politics, freedom by the press and

the human rights. As such the process of liberalization allows for greater degree of political

participation in the system, where single candidly states bears cognizance the essence to

which such practices is essential to the development of its polity.

It is also important to point out here that, the rapid trend and uneven pattern of economic

development which has gripped the Middle East since the 1990s has enormously played its

part in the bid for liberalization. Indeed the nature of the economic reform of the Middle East

has viewed by some authors is another most important indicator for the pressure for change by

the people. Where the ordinary citizen yearns for the equal distribution of the revenue from

the sales of its natural deposit, which is misguided distributed amongst the elite in power. As

Richards and Waterbury asserts: ‘Paradoxically liberalization can thus be seen as the only

10

Salame, G. (eds). 1994a: Democracy Without Democrats? The Renewal of Democracy in the Muslim World. London: IB Tauris


11

means by which the state can regain control over the direction of the economy. It is unlikely;

however, that the state in the most part of the Middle Eastern societies will again enjoy the

same degree of autonomy as it has in the past from the major interest and classes that

constitutes civil society.11

In the case of Lebanon the prospect for political liberalism are

promoted by the inherent respect for the economic liberal practices for which majority of the

citizens are infamous; as their economy is fostered towards free market principles.

Democracy and Islam: An Asymmetric Ladder

In the last decade, the Middles East has been perceived to accept some notion of democracy,

but however they do have differences over its precise definition and meaning. Muslim

interpretation of democracy which is interpreted to mean shura, placing various degree of

emphasis on the level to which the people are charged with power and are able to ensure that

this is realized. While many has focuses on the barriers of the democratic impulses of Islam,

others have also discovered the importance debate taking place within Islam and the role of

Islam in a world of nation-states, capital-led economies, multi-party regimes and system. As

Abou El Fadl (2004) contends, ‘democracy is an appropriate system for Islam because it both

expresses the special worth of human beings…and at the same time deprives the state of any

pretence of divinity by locating authority in the hands of the people rather than the ulema’. In

practice, we can associate the formation of the political liberation party in Tunisia in the

1980s in-turn an evidence of the liberalization of Islamic thinking.

The first encounter with the modern civility as far as the practice of the Islamic politics was

concerned was firstly the introduction of the western codes into the Ottoman Empire back in

the mid19th

Century. Before this there have been only two recognized types of law, which

were the religious (sharia) and the Sultan’s (qanun), both of which were administered by the

same religious leaders or heads. With the spread of the new nizamiye .i.e. westernized courts

administered by the ministry of justice, it was uniformly broken creating room for conceptual

distinction between religious practices and the state, something that was neither thought of

nor imagines to happen. This in-turn became the basis for a new political practises during the

reign of Abdul Hamid II (1876-1909), in which the sultan and his body of advisers sought

ways to instrumentalize Islam as a mean of integrating the Muslim people more firmly into

his reign as well as to provide with it strong legitimacy. As century went by with the creation

of the Turkish republic in 1923, the division of the notion of division of religion and politics

11

Richard, A. and Waterbury, J. 1990: A Political Economy of the Middle East. Boulder, CO: Westview


12

were used as a mean of achieve political secularism aimed at reducing the legitimacy of

religious influence over state policy.

A second attempt towards the attainment of democratic practises stems from the Ottoman

response from the pressures from the West to grant legal equality to the empires of the

Christian and Jews. This was to allow a general support for universalism with the creation of a

common communal framework where each sect and religions are allowed to maintain their

ethnic identity and language.

With the passage of time, at the moment many practises has begun to be seen by some

thinkers as a possible model for a set of relationships to be establish in any Arab Islamic state

with a substantial non-Muslim population, such country like Sudan. Nevertheless, for the vast

majority of Muslim Political activists, has begun to question to which extend the values of

religion and its applications seems to have disappeared in the public spheres. To them, the gap

between politics and religion, the state and religion which is impiously exacerbated by

western interference needs to be closed without delay.

On last important features of the Politization of religion in the Arab world was the known

disruption it has caused to the clerical hierarchies. For instance, in the Shia’s sect, the existing

hierarchical posited to Mullahs was confused after the 1979 resolution following the political

power which was bestowed on Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In Iran the same was witnessed in

the struggle for power against the Hussein regime, where second or sometimes third figures

come to prominence following their ability to mobilize political organisations.12

In addition, for writer like Martin Kramer and Kedourie the urge to input democratic qualities

to Islamic culture is a dangerous attempt for such people to understand the threat implicit it

poses in such as region as the Middle East. To this school of thought, there see no hope for the

birth of democracy in the region laying emphasis on the consociational Lebanon, Populist

Yemen and the monarchical Jordan. I want to believe that it is Islam which makes the Middle

East the exceptional to democratic rule as democracy can be in any society in the world only

if the system and structures allows for it. For instance looking at the Iraq, it has been the

Islamic forces basically the Shia leader of Ayatollah al-Sistani that has pushed toward the

attainment for democracy in the post-war era. The schedule of democratic elections in

January 2005, delivering a majority vote for the country’s future constitutional reconstruction

12

Roy Parviz Monttahedeh, “Keeping the Shi’ites straight”, Religion in the News (Trinity College, Hartford, CN), 6/2 (Summer 2003), p. 5.


13

in the emerging of a good structural political system, was down to the mobilization of a

constituent of religion and sectarianism.

Case Study: Jordan a Façade Democracy

Following the end of the cold war in 1990, Jordan was often cited as the most encouraging

example towards democratization in the Middle East. Years down the line there were more

circumspect analysis calling for an assessment of the rapid changes which were prevailing in

the country. Though Jordan wasn’t democratized fully, but they were element that depict that

democratization was never fully the aim of the ruling regime. Rather some element of a

façade democracy was created to satisfy the local for effective participation and as a condition

for American condition for democracy for aid giving and other financial assistance.13

The

process of political liberation was therefore met with lots of reversal, as the kingdom was

faced with internal crises due to factors such as peace with Israel, the political fallout of the

Gulf crisis. Though its constitution which is a monarchical in nature practising the bicameral

system of parliament, with an elected legislator known as the House of Representatives. The

senate makes up the House and are elected by the Monarch, who has the right to exercise this

power as frequent as he chooses. Though there has always been a plural and democratic

institution imbedded somewhat in its legislation and government, particularly since the period

of political instability of the late 1950s. However, from than twenty year from the late 1950s

full election has been suspended, political parties banned, press were censored and the internal

security imprisons more than a thousand of people based on political charges. Allegations of

abuses were consistent. This situation highlighted a system of autocratic rule, one which

oligarchies govern from the shade of a façade of liberal democratic forms which serves as a

screen for their rule, making the palace to controlling political arena for several decades rather

than the people themselves.

However the status quo was repressed to an extent following the series of riots throughout the

country towards the early 1989 following the refusal of imposition of IMF prices on food

produce. King Hussein aware of this pressure announced that full election would be held, on

the other spectrum the people believing that finally the monarch had decided to embark on a

process of democratization that would encourage plurality of opinion, increased opportunity

of participation, open freedom of speech and expression and assembly and finally will bring

an end to the high wage of corrupt practises. The reports following the election records

13

Milton Edwards, 1993: Jordan and façade democracy. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 20:3, pp. 191-203


14

though the campaign and polling were the freest ever experience, there were still an element

of prohibition, while press were still censored, a some reports of human right abuses. 14

The

election resulted in an awesome Islamic victory, with the monarch still holding the absolute

right subject to appoint the control of the cabinet the power to dissolve parliament and

dissolve elections as he so chooses. Indeed Jordan’s part to democratization has been a

manifestation of cosmetic democracy as much is viewed in which case the destination of

attaining full democratic practises it’s a long way ahead.

Case Study 2: Algeria- the wrong kind of democracy

This situation of democracy in Algeria represents one of the worst scenarios at

democratization in the region, with the way it has manipulated political ends. No doubt the

events since the late 1980s have presented it has been label the ‘wrong kind of democracy’,

where free electoral practises and political liberalization only encourage Islamic fanatics who

manipulated the system to their own undemocratic selfishness. The democratic debates which

faces the Algerian society was precipitated by the unusual political and economic circles- not

forgetting the financial crisis that gulf the country leading to spiral foreign debts.

On the political focal, was the crisis over legitimacy which was driven to heart by the Front de

Liberation Nationale (FLN). The outcome of this was a bloody turn-out of civil conflict,

massacre and bloodshed. The heart of the conflict has been a battle characterized by

illegitimacy on the one hand, and Islamists with total hegemony on the other hand.

After the attainment of Algeria’s independence in 1962 from the French, it was government

by the FLN led by Hourari Boumedienne who implements a quasi-military one-party regime

along the socialist line. State networking resulted in the end to any form of plural

parliamentary coalition for the citizenry. There was the suspension of the National Assembly

and the parliament. None the less, the economy of the Algerian polity still prospered.

However following the death of Boumedienne in 1978 the Algerian political and economic

structured flawed following the steps taken by Boumedienne successor Chadli Benjedid who

embarked on a process he called ‘de-Boumediennization’ which gripped the country to near

collapse. The turning point came in1988 when there was a revolt against the regime and full

demonstration flowed the city. Cheriet (1992), explain that ‘whether or not the demonstrations

14

Milton Edwards. 1996: Climate of change in Jordan’s Islamist movement. In Sidahmed, A. S. and Ehteshami, A. (eds).


15

where about economic crisis, poverty or not, the demands for democracy and the rejection of

economic monolithism is debatable in such situation.

In 1989 a national referendum ended the rule by the FLN and Chadli regime and ending the

one single party structure paving way for the formation of new parties. With the election in

1990 the resulted in a massive victory for the Front Islamique du Salut (FIS) promoting an

Islamic foundation and the establishment of an Islamic Algeria. The victory thus gave the FIS

control of major authorities’ .As the winning party rule, it was faced with various pressures

and challenges internally and externally. The process of a map towards democratisation by

the FIS became rather a threat to some Islamic fundamentalist who would not tolerate the

utilization of democratic process to replace the totalitarian government which was in

existence.

In 1990 witness the displacement of the FIS and the arrest of its leadership. The army sized

the control of the state, and the new president Lamine Zeroual could not offer major

improvement. As the civil war escalated several of thousand lives were lost and terrible

terrorist attacks were perpetuated. The economy was in total kiosk as several foreign investors

who were in the country fled in the face of the Islamic campaign of violence which was the

order of the day. The country was gradually dividing as even attempt by the international

community to savage the situation was aloft. Even the France who was the former colonial

ruler stood apart from the clash. Democratization was dead, the experiment in Algeria has

been a ground failure, the sentiment of democratization, freedom and expression has been lost

in the bloody clash that has engulfed every nook and cranny of Algeria.

Not until 1999 when the conflict was dissipated as the country declared a Civil Harmony Law

as a means of moving to amnesty and reconstructing the structures towards democratization

again. It was not until 2005 following the election of President Bouteflika for a second term

that army declared itself aware from the control in the polling process. With provision of the

charter by President Bouteflika has in a way transitioned the Algerian polity towards a new

beginning.


16

Some concluding remarks on the state of Arab democracy

From the afore mentioned case studies, It is no doubt that electoral democracy seems to have

played it best part in countries where it places a more central role in mediating communal

relations, as seen in Lebanon. This has obviously chequered progress in those countries where

post-independence difficulties has tend to encourage party regimes which has a primary

emphasis on the economic and social developmental with political control in these regions. It

follows that, the inability for a much attainable democratic practises lies in the hands of those

powerful elite leaders who seize the opportunity shortly after attainment to rule for their

selfishness alone. Where most of these elite leaders justify the loss of political attainment and

freedom in exchange for what was meant to be of societal goal of the national development

proceeds to manipulation of electoral laws in their favour or try to form new political partied

to suits themselves. This has led to an end to corrupt relationships between bureaucrats and

businessmen in terms of accountability of the system.

Also, the incessant uprising of radical religious movement each with its own militant wing has

made the whole process of creating new forms of political structures much more difficult to

attain. Whether or not Islam has been a barrier to the attainment of democratic practises is a

discuss for another day. But the way in particular in which these Muslim groups act

ambiguously in this regards as to encourage the need for democracy has created quite

considerably doubts among their more secular-minded countrymen.

In conclusion therefore, all these are enough to create a basic unique questioning of whether

or not there might be proper democratic practices in the Middle East. However, if we start by

looking at the historical precedence rather than the reliance on a series of ex cathedra

observations about what is missing in the Arab world, with its political cultures, we definitely

find a lot of differences. While some regions has shown a considerable development, given

the time frame others however enough to suggest that with adequate and more favourable

local and regional climate the same country might well be able to open to a more freer

political life in the future. At least, history has revealed a living legacy with which to keep the

idea of democracy alive but also ensures that it is subjective to continuous life debates.15

The

Process of democratization within the Arab region will hitherto remain a non-starter, limited

and crumble in its development until these long life philosophical debates and issues are fully

handed by all sectors of the society. While the press runs various media broadcast, news,

15

Ayubi, Over-Stating the State, pp. 442-5.


17

publications within the region, the truly democratic nature of discus towards democracy will

never find true expression. Even in Israel the parameter to these debates has influx tension

between religion and secular forces within its circumference. Evolution will be the notable

parameter towards developmental politics of the Middle East.


18

Bibliography:

Ayubi, Nazil N., 1995: Over-Stating the Arab State: Politics and Society in the Middle East

(London: I.B. Tauris)

Bernard Lewis, "Rethinking the Middle East" (Lecture given by Professor Lewis at the

"Henry M. Jackson Memorial Lecture", Henry M, Jackson Foundation, University of

Washington, Seattle, Washington, March 11, 1992): 25.

Cheriet, B. 1992: The resilience of Algerian populism. Middle East Report- MERIP, No. 174,

January-February, pp. 9-14

David F. J. Campbell, The Basic Concept for the Democracy Ranking of the Quality of

Democracy (Vienna: Democracy Ranking, 2008), no. 5

Erşat Hürmüzlü, "Working Together for Democracy in the Arab World" (An intervention by

Mr Erşat Hürmüzlü at the proceedings of the Working Together for Democracy in the

Arab World workshop, International Strategic Research Organization 'USAK', Ankara,

Turkey, October 27, 2011):39-42.

Milton Edwards, 1993: Jordan and façade democracy. British Journal of Middle Eastern

Studies, vol. 20:3, pp. 191-203

Milton Edwards. 1996: Climate of change in Jordan’s Islamist movement. In Sidahmed, A. S.

and Ehteshami , A. (eds)

Milton-Edwards, B. (2000). Contemporary politics in the Middle East. Polity Press.

Richard, A. and Waterbury, J. 1990: A Political Economy of the Middle East. Boulder, CO:

Westview

Richard Tapper, "Anthropologists, Historians, and Tribespeople on Tribe and State Formation

in the Middle East, "in Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East, eds. Philip S.

Khoury and Joseph Kostiner (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press,

1990), pp. 48-73

Roy Parviz Monttahedeh, “Keeping the Shi’ites straight”, Religion in the News (Trinity

College, Hartford, CN), 6/2 (Summer 2003), p. 5.


19

Salame, G. (eds). 1994a: Democracy without Democrats? The Renewal of Democracy in the

Muslim World. London: IB Tauris

Seymour Martin Lipset, “The Social Requites of Democracy Revisited”, American Socio-

logical Review 59, No. 1 (February 1994): 1-22

Ziya Öniş, "Working Together for Democracy in the Arab World" (An intervention by

Professor Dr. Ziya Öniş at the proceedings of the Working Together for Democracy in

the Arab World workshop, International Strategic Research Organization 'USAK',

Ankara, Turkey, October 27, 2011):47-48.

Blogs References

Ideology's Corner: ‘The Arab Uprising; Lessons for Nigeria’,

http://ideologyera.blogspot.com/2011/02/arab-uprisings-lessons-for-nigeria.html

Fadi Elhusseini: ‘The Arab World and Democracy’, http://paktribune.com/articles/The-Arab-

World-and-Democracy-243085.html

http://ideologyera.blogspot.com/2011/02/arab-uprisings-lessons-for-nigeria.html

http://paktribune.com/articles/The-Arab-World-and-Democracy-243085.html

http://paktribune.com/articles/The-Arab-World-and-Democracy-243085.html

the arab world and the politics of democracy

Documents