In 2009, the UCLA School of Public Policy held a panel on the politics and environment in the Middle East. The panel, made up of mostly academics from the school, was asked about the future of Middle East politics. One Adjunct professor made a remark about the rising tide of discontent among regular citizens. She said that we can speculate on a macro scale, but the environment on the ground, in the streets and in the mosques is much different. And, that is something we needed to pay attention to.
To say she had a crystal ball would be an understatement. In the last 4 years, the Arab world has experienced uprisings fueled by the desire to popularly elect leaders. The reaction of governments in the countries besieged by calls for democracy have ranged from immediate reforms (Morocco, Jordan, etc.) to civil war (Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc.). A 3-year civil war in Syria still rages on, with civilian and combatant casualties reaching over 100,000 and millions displaced.
While some of the countries have avoided long, drawn out conflict, the ones who have displaced their leaders by force (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya) still face an uphill battle towards full institution of a popularly elected government. And the ongoing civil war in Syria presents an age-old conundrum of choosing between the protection of civilians and democracy and the possible arming of future enemies.
Beyond the regional issues created by the Arab Spring, there remains a burning question about the Middle East: Are the countries of the Arab world ready for a Democracy?
Egypt
Egypt remains the most volatile of the Arab Spring countries, post-revolution. The Egyptian people popularly elected a government represented by the supposedly moderate Muslim Brotherhood, under the leadership of Muhamed Morsi. As the interim government rewrote the constitution and installed a Parliament, the Military moved aside and allowed for a peaceful transition of power. One year later, in response to another popular uprising, Morsi was deposed by the Military and the Parliament was dissolved. Morsi, who had promised a government that would represent the people who had struggled under the yoke of former president Mubarak, did the exact opposite. He installed Brotherhood members to cabinet positions and pushed aside secular opposition parties.
What is most disturbing about the plight of Egypt is that those who voted and elected Morsi will not see the Democracy as a legitimate means of governing. The consequences of electing an unpopular leader in a Democracy should always be resolved through the ballot box. In Egypt, that is not the case. The current environment bodes unfavorably for a country struggling towards a peaceful resolution. As Morsi supporters hold demonstrations (some peaceful, some not), members of the police and military fire live rounds into crowds, killing both the armed and the innocent.
Syria
Syria presents the Obama Administration with a conundrum: armed support of rebels against the Assad regime may lead to weapons falling into the hands of groups connected with terrorist organizations. A couple of the more effective rebel groups have already pledged allegiances to terrorist groups working in the Arabian Peninsula. This trade-off seems almost irrelevant when considering the amount of bloodletting and acts of barbaric savagery that have been perpetrated by both sides. But, taking the short view in a humanitarian crises only works in complement to the long-term perspective. And, the prospects for having a stable country following the end of the Civil War are low.
Democracy in Syria will never take hold because sectarian loyalties have crossed international borders and seeped their influence into the conflict. Iranian military units, Hezbollah militias and Russia have provided weaponry and support for the Assad regime and the Brotherhood, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and the Emirates have stepped up financial support for the Rebels. Syria has become less of a opportunity for Democracy and more of a laboratory for testing the extent of sectarian influence in the region.
Common Threads - Tyranny of the Majority
The Egyptian and Syrian conflicts represent a common threat in the region - uprisings, whether they supported by sectarian regimes or a result of popular protests, will not spawn a peaceful transition of power unless there is an assurance of complete representation. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison warned against the "Tyranny of the Majority" as an obstacle to the creation of a Democratic Republic. "Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by by common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." Creating a will, or a central form of power, according to Madison, is the instrument of governments ruled by "hereditary or self-appointed authority" (Egypt pre and post-revolution).
It is only when you create a government that is represented by a variety of viewpoints, whether they be secular or religious, you foster the seeds of a representative democracy. In Egypt, secular and Coptic representatives were pushed aside for a largely Islamist government. Instead of voting that government out, protests led to a military overthrow. In Syria, a splintered Rebel group backed by Sunni-majority countries is fighting a regime backed by Shiite-majority countries. These conditions will only lead to either the installment of a self-appointed leader (Egypt) or the continuation of sectarian violence that has plagued the Middle East (Syria). In both cases, Democracy is far from certain.
No comments:
Post a Comment