MIDDLE EAST: Western democracy stillborn in Mideast
Abe W. Ata
June 13, 2005
Democracy essentially means three things: honest government, rule of law and free speech. Autocratic Middle Eastern regimes agree. Yet they concede that Western-style human and political rights are not available in their countries and say that the public does not know of these rights and therefore does not need them. Who argues that ignorance is not bliss?
For many years America`s rationale for supporting autocratic regimes was the promise of stability. For authoritarian Arab regimes it was always easier to resist their public than the United States.
In 2004 the White House expressed an updated view. In his National Endowment for Democracy speech US President George W. Bush said that any promises of stability in the Middle East were deceptive and that the widespread corruption in governments is what makes the population vulnerable to Islamist ideologies.
Whatever the rationale Muslims remain skeptical about America`s idea of Middle-Eastern democracy. They are haunted still by America`s objection to free and legitimate elections involving an Islamic party in Algeria in 1992. They know that any democracy which is anti-American is viewed by the Capitol as neither legitimate nor democratic.
They also know that superpowers never falter in having designs on and interests in the region.
Most of the 22 Arab states recognize, but do not publicize, their failures with regard to economic and social matters and human rights, and are prepared to consider some reforms so long as power is not given to the people. Television and radio continue to be funded and directed by governments. Newspapers, magazines and books still require clearance from interior and education ministries. There is no encouragement of cultural or political phenomena that might embarrass the regime. Radio talkback is unthinkable for fear of comments that might be discussed nationally and have a liberating effect. Freedom to air opinions outside the mosque is severely restricted.
The need for honest government and the rule of law cannot be discussed without reference to the role of family structure. The Middle East continues to be a family-powered society: the extended family reacts to external forces as a collective unit. The Western concept of one person one vote is unthinkable. If enforced as it is in Iraq it is untranslatable to other walks of life. Patronage - the extending of favors to a village-based extended family or a sect in return for loyalty - is widespread. The Tikrit-Saddam partnership is replicated in other autocratic Arab regimes. Wastah, the use of power brokers to manipulate political situations, such as elections, - is common. Without it ordinary people cannot secure a job, while speedy paperwork in banks and government departments are dependent on it, as are tenders for public projects.
You may ask what difference does this make to the chances of democracy in the Middle East? Almost everything. Job applicants will have to be considered on merit - something completely at odds with the long tradition of patronage. Equally novel would be the introduction of Western-style regulations forbidding family members from working in the same institutions, legislation against sexual and religious harassment and the allowing of women to take a public place in social and cultural life without threat, ridicule or retaliation.
What is needed is a democratic peace - one where standard democratic institutions are built and through which all can participate and voice dissent when warranted. The people can then address and implement changes in the social, economic and political structures as they see fit and as it suits them. When this takes place the dignity of every woman and man in the Middle East will be truly guaranteed.
Abe W Ata, a temporary delegate to the UN in 1970, has lived and worked in the Middle East, America and Australia. He is currently a senior fellow at the Australian National University