October 4, 2005
Until
the September 11th terrorist attacks, a lack of political freedom in
the Middle East generally provoked little international outcry. But
in recent years, there has been an intense search for ways to unlock
the rigid ruling systems of many Mideast countries, which may foster
terrorism.
Political
systems in the Middle East range from benign monarchies and minor
autocracies to military dictatorships and totalitarian states. Marcus
Noland, a senior analyst at the Institute for International Economics
here in Washington, says statistical data indicate that
authoritarianism is especially persistent in Middle Eastern countries
with majority Arab populations. He adds that interpretations of this
particular finding are very controversial.
Some
argue that there’s something in the Arab culture that is inherently
anti-democratic and there are some anthropologists who have argued
this. But it also could be that it’s not Arab culture, per se. It’s
that there is something in the specific political history and current
status of these countries that is creating the statistical
association between Arab ethnicity and lack of democracy,” says Mr.
Noland.
Colonialism,
lack of modernization, social structures, government reliance on oil
revenues and religion are other commonly cited reasons for the
democratic deficit in the Arab world. Marius Deeb, Professor of
Middle East Studies at The Johns Hopkins University, is one of many
scholars who blame the region’s history of conflict for enabling
Arab rulers to suppress democratic movements.
“The
very idea that there is an Arab-Israeli conflict, which is going on
despite the fact there is a peace process from the 1970s onward,
creates this sort of excuse to have military dictators and to have
one-party systems operating, taking over power and remaining in
power,” says Professor Deeb.
But
many observers say the political history of the Middle East is not
much different from that of the rest of the world. North Korea,
China, Burma and a number of other countries in Asia, as well as
several African states, also suffer from a lack of democracy and show
few signs of improvement. Many also point out that the former Soviet
republics, including Russia, are sliding into authoritarianism,
except for a few shaky pockets of political pluralism like Georgia,
Ukraine and Moldova.
Juan
Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan, says
emerging from authoritarianism can be slow and painful in any part of
the world and that the Middle East is no exception. He says
democratic governance is supported by relatively well off and
educated societies and rarely those with low per capita incomes.
“Most
Arab countries do not have a thriving working and middle class that
has the kind of income that it could mobilize resources for a greater
share of power. A country like Egypt has a per-capita income of
something on the order of $1,000 a year. And what that really means,
since urban people make much more [money] than rural people, is that
most Egyptians who live in the countryside, probably 40 percent or
so, really are living on a few hundred dollars a year.”
Professor
Cole points out that even oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia have
impoverished populations and that unemployment is on the rise
throughout the Arab world. Syria, for example, a tightly controlled
military regime, is among the least developed countries in the
region. But he acknowledges that poverty and illiteracy do not always
impede democracy, as evidenced by India.
Marcus
Noland of the Institute for International Economics says that unlike
Indian leaders, Arab ruling elites have chosen not to modernize their
social and political systems. “My statistical results are pointing
toward an explanation that emphasizes basic issues having to do with
[a lack of] modernization combined with elite preferences as being
the basic drivers for the enduring authoritarianism of the region,”
he says.
But
Anthony Cordesman, a senior Middle East analyst at Washington’s
Center for Strategic and International Studies, disagrees. “You
have in Saudi Arabia’s case, an extraordinarily conservative and
traditional population, not a group of people seeking democracy and
freedom, but often the leadership of the royal family, technocrats
and educators who have pushed for reform faster than much of the
people necessarily want to follow. [It is] almost the reverse of the
traditional argument about authoritarianism and democracy,” says
Mr. Cordesman.
The
escalation of global terrorism, aimed at Arab as well as Western
targets, and increased pressure to democratize, have forced many
authoritarian rulers to allow some political reform in recent years.
But Islamist groups, some of them long suppressed or even banned like
the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, have turned out to be among the most
eager to participate in the political process. Many in the West fear
that democratization of the Middle East may replace current
authoritarianism with rigid Islamist regimes.
Professor
Juan Cole agrees that democratizing the Muslim world would likely
produce gains for Islamists. But the alternative, he says, is more
autocracy and more violence. He cites the example of Algeria where an
Islamist election victory in 1991 was annulled, plunging the country
in a bloody civil war.
Many
analysts predict that Islamist parties that are now seen as
traditionalist and reactionary are more likely to bring democracy to
the Middle East than outside pressure. But ultimately, most say,
democracy will come to each country when its people are ready for it
and not a moment before.
This article was written for the Voice of America in 2005
