| Is the Muslim Middle East undergoing a process of democratization? |
|
|
| 09-06-2005 | |
|
Is the Muslim Middle East undergoing a process of democratization? 10/06/2005
Muslim Countries in the Middle East appear to be the only area on earth where we could speak of a region where there is no democracy. Among the twenty two Muslim Arab countries, almost none of them is a democracy. Turkey could be an exception to the rule, but even there, democracy suffers a great deal of inconsistencies such as: the prominent role of the army, the lack of protection granted to minorities, etc. which makes it hard to rank Turkey among fully democratized countries. In the Muslim Middle East, the existing regimes can be classified as “traditional autocracies”, like Saudi Arabia, or “modernizing autocracies” as appears more liberal regimes like Jordan, Egypt, or Morocco. The other countries belong either to the branch of fascist style dictatorships ( Baa’thist governments in Syria and former Iraq), or to radical Islamic regimes, like the Iran government. It seems even impossible to talk of weak or hybrid democracies in the Arab Muslim countries, suggesting that there would be some elements of a democracy, but not the whole set of institutional an value system allowing us to talk of Democracy. There, the rule appears totally non-democratic. In view of the current situation, is it possible to assert that a move towards Democracy occurred? Is it linked to the first Gulf War, which brought a train of reforms in the region? Is there a perspective towards Democracy as encouraged by the MEPI (Middle East Partnership Initiative) initiative or by the recent war in Iraq? First, we should question the word “Democracy”. Since all democracies bear more or less some flaws, to find a single definition that indicates precisely when a country become truly a democracy seems quite impossible. However, there are usual standards taken into account to evaluate the level of democratization in a country: free elections overtaken fairly, possibility of changing the leaders through peaceful means, independent parliamentary representation political pluralism (organized parties), and the protection of human rights. Those criteria are often seen as “Westernized” and unable to fit the reality of Muslim countries. Professors Voll and Esposito for example assume that there are different kinds of democracies as much as there are different kinds of Islam, and that Democracy, in the framework of Islam, does not have the same criteria, or goals as the Western ones. Therefore the “democratization” should be assessed differently. However, if we consider that democracy is universal, and that there should be no exception justifying the violation of human rights, then, the process of democratization in the Middle East is highly questionable. According to the universal, or liberal definition of democracy, there may be some kind of liberalization in the Middle East, but maybe not a democratization. The first prospects for democracy in the Middle East lie just before and after the Gulf War period (except for Egypt, whose democratization started sooner). Algeria, Egypt, Jordan and Yemen all have democratized their system during the 1990’s: they experienced a certain decline in the quality of life over the course of the 1980s. In all those countries, the one-state party were in decay, and a certain malaise touched the elites and masses. Michael C. Hudson calls it the “ malaise of Arabism” , and says that the frustration of the people towards their governments was increasing as those governments did not find any solution to inter Arab cooperation, or to their dependence on the West. This frustration over unsolved problems eroded the legitimacy of established governments, which may have influenced a number of Arab leaders and made them broaden their popular support by somewhat relaxing the authoritarian climate. There are of course more specific reason to each country to engage in the process of liberalization. But, in the general picture, Egypt, Jordan, Algeria and Yemen underwent some reforms at the same time. In May 1990, Egypt’s higher Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the electoral law under which the People’s assembly had been elected in 1987. President Mubarak was forced to dissolve the parliament two years before the expiration of its term and was expected to set new elections later under a new electoral law. Mubarak’s act of obedience to the rule of law may be seen as a great sign of change towards a democratization of the rule. Egypt under Mubarak has had a track record of nearly a decade of political pluralism, or ta’addudiyya as it is called in Arabic. Political parties and associations functioned openly, and the press enjoyed a significant freedom (relatively to what it was under former governments, or in other Arab countries). In Algeria, between 1988 and 1992, the Constitution was overhauled, political parties of all stripes functioned -Islamic parties included- the government suppressed press censorship and encouraged the development of newspapers, as well as any kind of association, by simplifying the procedures for establishing them. In Jordan, April 1989 was marked by a series of demonstrations for “democratic, pluralistic parliamentary representation”. The government initiated a series of liberalizing political steps including a relaxation of the pressures on journalists and the prevision of parliamentary elections. In 1989 Jordan held its first full legislative elections since 1967. In the same trend, Sultan Qabus of Oman announced in November 1990 his intention to widen the representation in his country’s consultative assembly. In November 1990 even the Saudi Arabian king Fahd reaffirmed his intention to establish a long promise advisory council, its members being appointed, not elected. Tunisia, in the post Bourguiba era, held parliamentary elections in 1989 in which some opposition parties were allowed. Following Iraq defeat by the US led coalition in February 1991 President Saddam Hussein publicly announced his government decision to move towards a democratic society, the rule of law, and a multiparty system. The Gulf War provoked a large movement of hope for reforms in the Middle East. The 1990’s were a turning point in the Middle East democratization, from this political point of view, but also thanks to the development of a society of information. The access to information being easier (development of Al Jazeera , Al Arabia…) the scholars and governments found it harder to monopolize the tools of culture. Information led to the creation of a civil society, more critical, which even could be dissent. Mass communication and education transformed the Muslim world, by undermining the power of the “gate keepers” (Eickleman): the authorities who set the norms and watch over the transgression of those norms. No group or type of leader in contemporary Muslim societies now enjoys a monopoly over the management of the sacred. The recent Iraqi war and the will of American government to democratize the Middle Eastern region deepened the process of democratization. Before entering the practical ways used by the Americans to help implanting democracy, it should be born in mind that the reasoning of Washington administration consists in thinking that democracies do not fight each other, and are therefore a favourable factor for peace and development. Promoting democracy and human rights is now a central pillar of U.S. policy in the Middle East. As President Bush stated on November 6, 2003, “the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East.” Through the U.S.-Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) and in consultation with Middle East governments, civil society and G-8, European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organization partners, the United States wish to continue supporting reform in the Middle East to increase freedom, political modernization and economic development. Positive trends toward democratization and human rights protection continued in a number of countries over the past year. In Iraq, a U.S.-led Coalition ended the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and is now supporting the establishment of a democratic, pluralist government (even if the future of Iraq is unclear, it is not a dictatorship anymore). In Morocco, parliament passed a new family law improving the status of women and creating a more egalitarian society. The citizens of Jordan and Yemen elected new parliaments in elections that were generally free and fair. More women have been appointed to ministerial positions in countries across the region. New legislation in Bahrain authorizing trade unions has resulted in a nascent labor movement, with 40 unions registering over the past year and a half. New human rights commissions have been created in Jordan and Egypt; their actions and influence can stand international watch. In some parts of the region, the Web access is increasing and there is a growing diversity among broadcasters for satellite television in Arabic. This means that more citizens are beginning to shop freely for ideas in the world marketplace and heavy, control from Government over media is slowly being eroded. Women voted and ran for office in Bahrain's elections last year. Qataris approved a new Constitution, and a woman has been appointed Minister of Education. Civil society is growing in Morocco and political prisoners have been released and compensated. Crown Prince Abdullah has proposed domestic reforms in Saudi Arabia, as well as an "Arab Charter" for enhanced political participation and economic revitalization. Do those reforms open the door to real democratization ? And what are the perspectives of a greater US implication in the process of democratization? Firstly, it is important to notice that democracy, in general, enjoys a genuine mass support in the Middle East. As the West, now dominant and wealthy, the Arab world previously dominant some centuries ago, tends to see in Democracy, the secret of Western success. Therefore, almost every Arab country calls itself a democracy. But at the same time, the Muslims want Islamic rule to be more visible in society and politics. As professors Voll and Esposito put it : “ Religious resurgence and democratization are two of the most important developments of the final decade of the twentieth century”. And contrary to what could be expected the two phenomena are not necessarily in a contradiction. A large part of the Muslim population want both greater participation in the political processes, and on the other hand, they want their society to be more explicitly identifiable as Islamic. Therefore, the global problem of democratization in the Middle East is to know whether another kind of democracy, not rooted in tradition, can be envisaged. Can democracy survive in an Islamic context? Or should we consider that the principal burden to democratization is the strength of Islam within society? As Tariq Ramadan, a Muslim European intellectual asserted: religion is deeply rooted in the Muslim world. This may explain the success of Islamic parties at the elections: in Algeria in 1992, the FIS ( Front Islamique) won the first “free and fair” elections and in Jordan, in 1988, the Islamic party won also a great deal of polls. But even non Islamic countries such as Egypt, and Jordan see Islam as the ground for social and political organizations. As opposed to the Western definition of democracy, secularism is not, in their eyes, a necessary condition to Democracy: To the question: is Islam compatible with Democracy? The ambassadors of Morocco and Egypt recently refused to answer, saying that the response was obviously: yes. Muslims governors, as well as intellectuals often argue that democracy as it is understood in Europe cannot be implemented in the Middle East where society and values are completely different. They denounce the ethnocentrism of the West promoting a single form of Democracy. They assert that in Muslim countries Democracy cannot have any legitimacy if not associated to Islam. More deeply, they assert that in Islam there is a ground for democracy. According to professors Voll and Esposito, the three pillars of Islam’s political system would be in accordance with democracy. The first principle is the principle of God’s unity and sovereignty, therefore, Islam can be seen as a “theo-democracy”: the theocracy built up by Islam is not ruled by a particular religious class but by the whole community of Muslims (there is no clergy in Islam). So, equal participation would be favoured by the Koran. Then, prophethood proves that human agents are involved in implementing the Islamic message. Human initiative to establishment of the rule is admitted. Last, the caliphate does refer to all humans, and not to a particular class of people, identifying them as deputies of God on Earth. As a consequence, each individual is able to share the divine caliphate, and all individuals are equal. There would be several other Islamic concepts that can be used to build a Democracy: consultation (shura) implies a mutual consultation on equal footing, consensus (ijma) is the equivalent of the majority rule, and then ijtihad, independent interpretive judgement leads to freedom of thought. In such a perspective, based on a particular definition of Democracy as non secular and non liberal, Islam and Democracy are compatible. And the few reforms that recently occurred can be seen as a way open towards Democratization. ******************** However, if we consider the real facts, Khomeiny who had called for participation (within the framework of Islam, of course) was at the head of one of the 30 out of 190 less democratic countries. Maybe something went wrong in the former reasoning, and maybe democracy should be redefined clearly. Democracy, according to its standard definition, is not only about participation, first and foremost it is about freedom. Islamic governments can be elected, even with a great majority, but they do not ensure basic liberties. More commonly, they suppress them because they do not fit the Islamic law. But the problem does exist not only in well known Islamic regimes, it is exactly the same kind of dilemma that occurs in Egypt, or other Muslim countries where Sharia is the “source of law”. According to the Islamists, Democracy is opposed to Islam in its basic principles: Democracy implies that the sovereignty belongs to men, whereas in Islam, it is a God’s attribute. Power is in men’s hand and not in God’s will, which makes Democracy somewhat unfaithful. In Western democracies, consensus is the fruit of bargaining based upon a give and take process between ethnic, political and religious groups, thus admitting the relativity of their convictions. In Islam there is only one truth, the Koran, anything else is blaspheme. Some intellectuals like Lord Parekh argue that the system of values is simply different and that the Muslim societies are built to serve a community and not individuals. Therefore, individuals have rights as long as they do not interfere with the community interests. But, as a consequence, obviously, the rights of the individual are not respected. Democracy in Islamic countries, as it is described by many Arab intellectuals as well as by Westerners (like Professor Voll, Esposito, or Eickelman) would be reduced to a single perspective: Muslim can do what they want within the framework of Islam, they can interpret a Koran verse more or lessstrictly, but they cannot violate it ( publicly at least). Of course, no protection is granted to non- Muslim minorities, and their political participation is forbidden. As long as a Muslim country cannot do something that is in contradiction with Islam, there is also no chance of women liberalization. Less than 4% deputies are women in Muslim countries of the Middle East. Once again, it seems that “democracy” deprived of civil liberties is not Democracy anymore. It is what Fareed Zakaria calls “illiberal democracies” that give some kind of political rights, but no civil liberties. Democracy, without freedom tradition, usually ignores constitutional limitations. Leaders may be elected, their legitimacy may even be reaffirmed by referenda, no constitutional measures binds them to protect basic liberties. It seems that, as Lord Parekh claimed, Muslim societies are more holistic than the Western ones, as a consequence, they accept more easily democracy than liberalism, because liberalism means individualism and then, division. But, liberty is the core value of democracy, and it seems impossible to describe a country as democratic when this condition is not fulfilled. Other factors, more cultural than religious, impede the implementation of Democracy in the Middle East. To begin with there are some social explanations revealing that one of the main obstacles to democracy is the attitude of the upper class towards opening the political system to meaningful participation. They oppose it as a threat to their power and control. Powerful states like Jordan are governed by royal families or by a minority who are committed into retaining power in their hands. Secondly, it is often argued that Muslim societies have a political culture that is tribalized, hierarchical. There is no chance for the spring of a civil society, which means the intermediate level between the basic cells of society (tribe, family) and the government. In the Middle East, there is no civil society because the blood and tribal relations are too strong to allow another kind of organization within society. Another deep factor of the Muslim rejection of democracy is that they take it as synonymous to disorder. This is for example the thesis of Fatima Mernissi in her book Islam and democracy, She states that Democracy frightens Muslims because it reminds them of the period of the closing of the ijtihad (personal interpretation), a period when the personal opinions brought division and fights. The Western insisting on free opinion reminds the Muslims of the Malikite school, of the Sufis who rejected the idea of blind submission, and of the Kharajites, anarchists people who employed terrorism. For Muslims, Democracy is often associated with dark times of their history, it reminds of massacres and disorder. Fatima Mernissi provides also historical explanations to the reject of democracy, she claims that the nationalist movements during the 19th and 20th centuries focused on the struggle against the West and its colonization, thus they were compelled to root themselves more deeply in Islam. After the period of decolonization, came the independence of Muslim states. New leaders had the choice between promoting the humanist heritage left by the colonials, taking the risk of losing unity because of divergence of opinion. On the other hand, they could safeguard unity by clinging to the past, to the Islamic tradition of ta’a, obedience. They choose the second option, and denounced the democratic values as Western and “imported”. Considering the reject of democracy as imposed by foreigners, one could wonder if the actual policy of democratization led by the United States has a chance to succeed. In an article published in the Syrian daily Teshreen on October 28, 2003, writer R. Zain accuses the U.S. of distorting the word "terrorism" to meet its goal of world domination. The following are excerpts from the article: "Every day, the whole world is willingly or unwillingly instructed by Washington to do what it should, according to the U.S. diktat, [do] as regards combating terrorism. The administration of President George W. Bush …, unfortunately and regardless of all world nations, sees itself as the only party which knows [mankind's] needs and what peoples must do to guarantee their safety and security and to safeguard their democracy, freedom and prosperity. How can the U.S. claim itself to be the defender of justice, democracy and freedom and the staunch protector of human rights when it continues to mastermind hegemony, to perpetuate the law of the jungle, to back the forces of terrorism, occupation and aggressors and to validate Sharon's genocide against the Palestinians. Under current tragic and fatal circumstances as well as the flagrant and racist lexicon of Washington, no sane person is able to describe America's new democracy as human, passionate, good and progressive.” The U.S.-Middle East Partnership Initiative, presented by Secretary of State Colin Powell on December 12, 2002, aroused exactly the same reactions in the Arab media: they do not openly reject democracy but argue that it is only a way for Americans to impose their views, and control the Middle East. This is where Islamists may gain ground: they despise of democracy is equal to their hate of the West. Contrary to the moderate leaders who may try to have a nuanced discourse asserting that the Muslim countries can build their kind of democracy without the help of the US, the Islamic discourse is clear: the condition for the revival of the Muslim proud and success is the eviction of what is foreign, in a practical way: end of the American or Israeli “occupation”, and in a theoretical way, end of democracy which is their attribute. One could wonder why, then, the Americans still offer 25 million dollars through the MEPI to support democracy in the Middle East… Apart from the political reasoning that consists in saying that democracies do not fight each other, the new staff in charge of the Foreign Affairs department in the United States supports the theory that from a lack of democracy stems fundamentalism, and then, terrorism. As most Arab regimes remain authoritarian, fearing both Islamism and democracy, the people suffer from this lack of perspective and cling to fundamentalism. Democracy, even if it entails that Islamic parties will win the elections would be better than authoritarian regimes. Indeed, mass support for fundamentalism reflects the experience of repeated failures and frustrations towards the “moderate” regimes, which translate unto demands for a radically different kind of values and society. To the question why do people prefer religion to democracy? Fatima Mernissi answers that religion creates a “space for renewal and reflections on the universe and its injustices”. Islam gives people a framework within which to express their pain, and moreover, it transforms their frustration and anger into a program of revenge, what Gilles Kepel calls “la revanche de Dieu”. More concretely, the Islamists offer an alternative society which provides with free services- private lessons, extended medical help, Islamic banking system. As the Iraqi war shows no ending, the rejection of the US and its attribute, Democracy, seems every day more accurate. The Chiites rebels in Iraq are gaining a large solidarity in the Arab world, they appear like a minority heroically fighting the almighty US army. In this context of war, the chances that Democracy can develop in the Middle East seem so thin. The Islamic answer for recovering the Arab nation ( oumma)’s honour and pride after the US victory is gaining ground. Nevertheless, it seems that hope could come in a tricky way from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Since the late 90's, a grassroot movement of democratization has emerged mainly among youth and women, and is already endangering the conservatives' power. Eventually, a new transformation for Iran would allow a renewal for all the Muslim world as the Islamic system will prove to be a complete failure. Emanuelle Girsowicz |
|
| Dernière mise à jour : ( 30-08-2005 ) |
| < Précédent | Suivant > |
|---|
