What Will Replace Egyptian, Tunisian, Bahraini, Jordanian, Syrian, and Yemeni Tyrants? Democracy, If You Can Keep It

Protests in Tahir Square, Cairo, Egypt

Over the past month, US officials seem to have one central, overarching theme in their message to the people of the Middle East: “we will ambiguously and half-heartedly support your democratic aspirations.” When it is politically easy to support protest movements, like in Iran, we will show our support. When it seems we have no choice, we will do the politically expedient thing and begrudgingly throw our lot behind the people, like in Tunisia and especially Egypt. But when it isn’t politically expedient and some sort of national security or business interest stands in the way, we keep our mouths shut, like in Jordan, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain. While it is frustrating that freedom and democracy take a backseat to oil and counterterrorism, a more serious concern for democracy-enthusiasts is the fragility that these new governments are often built upon.

Consider this statement by political scientist Jack Snyder: “The experiment with democracy in [the Middle East] is just the latest chapter in a turbulent story that begun with the French Revolution.” Now, that was written in 2004 with regards to Iraq, but the basic context of a nascent democracy and rival groups pulling the country into discord can apply to almost any country that has seen unrest over the last month. While nobody disagrees that the French Revolution was a noble cause, or that democracies are essentially good, getting there is often turbulent, violent, and in no way pre-determined.

Snyder continues to say that, “More fundamental, emerging democracies often have nascent political institutions that cannot channel popular demands in constructive directions or credibly enforce compromises among rival groups.” The lack of political institutions alone could be devastating for the new Middle Eastern democracies. NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote yesterday about the lack of development in the Arab region over the last 30 years, which does not bode well for their chances of keeping democracy. “The United Nations’ Arab Human Development Report,” he writes “stated that the Arab world is suffering from three huge deficits — a deficit of education, a deficit of freedom and a deficit of women’s empowerment. A summary of the report in Middle East Quarterly in the Fall of 2002 detailed the key evidence: the gross domestic product of the entire Arab world combined was less than that of Spain. Per capita expenditure on education in Arab countries dropped from 20 percent of that in industrialized countries in 1980 to 10 percent in the mid-1990s. In terms of the number of scientific papers per unit of population, the average output of the Arab world per million inhabitants was roughly 2 percent of that of an industrialized country.” This report reveals that there will be many hindrances to a strong civil society that democracies demand, and in some respects 19^th century France was in a more conducive situation for democracy than the 21^st century Middle East.

Another hindrance, especially to countries with multi-ethnic societies is that “Countries transitioning to democracy… are more likely than other states to get into international and civil wars. In the last 15 years, wars or large-scale civil violence followed experiments with mass electoral democracy in countries including Armenia, Burundi, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Russia, and the former Yugoslavia. In part, this violence is caused by ethnic groups’ competing demands for national self-determination, often a problem in new, multiethnic democracies” (Snyder again). Americans know all-too-much about how deep sectarian fault lines run in this region, as our war in Iraq nearly exploded in civil war between the outgoing Sunni government and the ingoing Shia government. Even more devastating is the countries ruled by an ethnic or religious minority groups (think Bahrain, Syria, and Jordan). These are also, perhaps not surprisingly, countries that the Obama Administration is publicly treading cautiously with in regards to supporting the democratic movements over the tyrants who suppress them.

No one is rooting for the success of Arab self-determination more than I am, although, if history is any guide, this will be an extremely difficult process -- one in which I will probably be still cheering for in my old age. It reminds me of that Ben Franklin quote, when he responded to a woman asking what kind of government had been decided upon in America, he said “A republic, if you can keep it.” The truth is, nobody knows what the outcome in the newly emerging Arab governments will be. They could be like the French Revolution of 1789, or 1848, or maybe 1879, when the French Republicans finally wrested control of the government from the Monarch. What is clear is that things will never be the same.

Further Reading:

Jack Snyder: One World, Rival Theories

LA Times: Revolutionary wisdom: A primer

NY Times: If Not Now, When?

As Egypt is One Step Closer Towards Democracy, Western Officials Fear Favorable Outcome for Muslim Brotherhood

As Egypt seems to get closer and closer to a transition to democracy every day, many commentators are deploring the growing role Islamist Parties, specifically the Muslim Brotherhood, may play in the newly formed government. In essence, commentators are stuck in the bind of supporting a democratic process, but not the outcome of that process. We just cannot have our cake and eat it too.

The Bush Administration also grappled with this paradox as it fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to establish democracies there, yet at the same time condemned the democratic election of Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Muslim Brotherhood in 2005. We basically seem to have a policy of supporting free societies just up to the point where the we find the people elected don’t really seem to jive well with the status quo balance of power in the Middle East.

The presence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt’s unrest and the recent majority Hezbollah gained in Lebanon has reignited this debate. There are, to be fair, serious concerns about balancing an Islamist Party with democracy, the biggest being the establishment of Shariah Law versus an independent judiciary. Islam is the only organized religion with its own set of judicial laws that run directly counter to Western notions of freedom and liberty. But Americans don’t seem to have a problem of continuing their precious support for Saudi Arabia, which is probably the biggest hotbed of Anti-Western and anti-Jewish sentiment in the region. So why the disconnect?

So what if Egyptians want to elect an Islamist Party? Why should we stop Egyptians from doing what they want? Is it not their country? If they want to be a theocratic state (which seems highly unlikely), then let them! If they want to wear Hawaiian shirts on Friday, then why not? If they want to wear their underwear on their heads, why not? Aren’t they a ‘free people’ now? Egypt should be for Egyptians.

If President Obama truly wants to stand with the democratic aspirations of all people, like he said in his State of the Union, he will simply have to accept the fact that the outcome may not be favorable to the US. We have for many years purchased stability at the cost of democracy, and we should recognize that we simply cannot have it both ways anymore. President Obama should take steps towards recognizing democratically elected Hamas and Hezbollah, and also towards bringing the Muslim Brotherhood into the newly formed Egyptian government. In order for these groups to shed their fundamentalist nature, they will have to eventually come out of the shadows – and we should do everything we can to facilitate that process.

There are, of course, many risks that we take in supporting the democratic process, but there are arguably even more risks that we have seen unravel over the past week from hedging our bets against the democratic aspirations of the Arab people.

Clinton Finally Uses the D-word, Democracy -- Will Mubarak Take Heed?

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton resisted calls to explicitly tell Mubarak to step down when she was on a handful of morning talk shows on Sunday, but she did for the first time in the official US response to the Egyptian unrest use the d-word, democracy. Ms. Clinton said on CNN “Both existing and any new members of any government [must] take concrete steps toward democratic and economic reform,” and highlighted the carefully calibrated “transition” wording that is now being used with regards to an end-game scenario in Egypt.

As the situation on the ground has been rapidly changing over the past few days, so too has the language that Western officials have used to show their support, or lack of it, of the aging dictator. Obama made vague mentions of support for ‘democratic aspirations’ in his State of the Union which coincided with the first few days of the unrest. The gaffe-prone Biden said on Friday that Mubarak was actually not a dictator. Now the administration seems to have adopted a new stance, stemming from the continued unrest over the weekend, which depicts an increasingly weak and fragile government. Indeed many nations all over the world are calling for some sort of democratic transition, but refraining from calling for Mubarak to step down.

Fears that a radical movement could fill the vacuum of power that Mubarak’s absence would bring reverberate throughout many foreign official's concerns of a regime change in Egypt. Many commentators are suggesting that the protests could be hijacked by fundamentalists, and would result in another Iran-like theocratic state.

While we should fear the radicalization of the presently secular protests, we should even more so fear deeper alienating the democratic process by imposing our influence over what should be a matter decided upon by Egyptians. Not Americans, not Britons, not Israelis or Chinese, but by the Egyptian people alone. Not to mention the fact that the protests seem to be largely secular anyway and that the most prominent Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, has agreed to take a backseat in the forming of a new government. But US support of any one person or candidate is much more a burden than a help. The popularity of the United States is still quite low because of increasing belligerence in the region over the last decade, and if we do decide to back any one candidate over another then we will only be pushing moderate Egyptians towards radical solutions.

While US restraint on publicly stating Mubarak should step down is frustrating, especially considering we’re the country with the most leverage in Egypt given the aid we give, no other countries are calling for the dictator to step down either. No European country is saying that, nor China, nor India, or Japan either. In some respects this tact has already achieved perhaps game changing results. The New York Times reported that the "EU Institute for Security Studies said Mubarak’s regime was ‘beyond the point of reforming.’ The appointment of Omar Suleiman as vice president ‘indicates that the army, probably prodded by the U.S. administration, has accepted that Mubarak must leave.’”

Consider this statement made by British Prime Minister David Cameron: “There needs to be a proper, orderly transition to a more democratic situation, where there are greater rights, greater freedoms, better rule of law…It is very important that, whether it is President Obama or me, we are not saying who should run this country or that country.” We would do well to heed his advice and continue to limit our involvement to calling for general reform and continuing to use the military aid we give as leverage. Indeed it seems that these actions have already reaped handsome rewards.

Further Reading:

NY Times: EU Urges Egypt to Seek Peaceful Shift to Democracy

Washington Post: Obama administration aligns itself with protests in Egypt...

Stunning Video Footage Shows Egyptian Military Protecting Demonstrators From Police

I wanted to post this raw footage from Cairo this morning, one day after the most violent protests in recent history. What you are watching is a group of Egyptian policemen attempting to clear a street which leads to Tahir Square, a major protest site over the past few days. The police subsequently fired shotguns into the air and the Egyptian police moved tanks in front of the rock-wielding protesters to shield them from the line of fire. If there is an onslaught of violence between the police, who are currently guarding the presidential palace, and the military, who show signs of increasingly strained relations with dictator Hosni Mubarak, we could very well see some sort of revolution take place within the next few days.

Egyptian Military is Siding With Demonstrators

Today marks the fifth day of the Egyptian uprising, and dictator Hosni Mubarak seems to be running out of options to quell the unrest. We all saw the pictures of the tumult from Friday, when the feared police attempted to violently disperse the thousands of people who took to the streets. The police used tear gas canisters, batons, rocks, water cannons, and in some cases even open fired on protesters as violence quickly escalated out of control.

But the riot police seemed to have largely failed to restore peace, and may have even fueled more anger towards the regime. Even as cell phone and internet services were cutoff and curfews were put in place, Egyptians are united like never before, setting fire to Mubarak’s ruling party headquarters, looting the Interior Ministry and state television headquarters, and setting fire to about half a dozen police stations and cars as well.

The feared police have now withdrawn from the streets to take positions around the Presidential Palace, as Mubarak tries a change of tact and has ordered the military to restore calm to the streets of Cairo. This is pretty much the last option the aging dictator has, and many see it as the last barrier between Egypt and democracy. But, two things remain unclear. One is what orders Mubarak will give the army, or has given the army with regards to the level of force that is acceptable to disperse the protests. But, more importantly, it remains unclear how the soldiers will respond to their orders, if they do respond at all.

It’s about 7:00 PM in Egypt right now, and so far the army hasn’t used violence to enforce the 4 PM curfew. News agencies are reporting many instances where the military appears to support the protesters more than the officials they are taking orders from. A soldier in Cairo reportedly addressed Egyptians with a bullhorn saying, “The army and the people will purify the country.” There was an announcement earlier Saturday saying that anybody out after curfew would be arrested, but the military is doing nothing to move the protesters out of the streets, and in some cases soldiers reportedly “smiled and shook hands with protesters and invited them up onto their tanks,” reported the Washington Post.

While the restraint could mean the military has sided with the protesters, it could also represent a new tactic by Mubarak. As the violent methods of suppression the police used largely fueled more unrest, the military is holding back on using force perhaps so protests will wither away as there doesn’t seem much to fight back against. It could also mean that Mubarak has lost control of the military, and if that’s the case then this drama will probably unravel quicker then we know it.

Further Reading:

NY Times: Egypt Protests Continue as Military Stands By

Washington Post: Cairo falls into near anarchy; army warns it will treat protesters as criminals

Obama Voices Support for Tunisia in SOTU, But What About Egypt?

The civil unrest in Egypt has sent U.S. officials scrambling to explain our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East. Under scrutiny is the policy of massive military and economic aid to brutal dictators, while at the same time claiming to advocate for political and economic reform.

President Obama, in his State of the Union address subtlety expressed support for democratic efforts in Egypt, saying “Tonight, let us be clear: The United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia, and supports the democratic aspirations of all people." Hilary Clinton especially, being in charge of the State Department, has been making speeches expressing support for reform in the region. The United States, she said, “have consistently raised with the Egyptian government, over many years, as well as other governments in the region, the need for reform and greater openness and participation in order to provide a better life, a better future, for the people.”

But actions speak louder than words. And when we don’t put any teeth behind these words it makes our efforts seem half-hearted and meaningless. Dictator Hosni Mubarak has been the recipient of billions of billions of military and economic aid, and that gives the US a lot of leverage over the Egyptian President. Simply asking a dictator to enforce political reforms that would essentially bring about his demise, and expecting change is just plain dumb. We owe it to ourselves, as a country founded on the idea of democracy and liberty, and to Egyptians to spend that money wisely and put conditions on aid. Without using our leverage, and possibly adding some sticks into the equation if we don’t see reform, saying that we support Egypt is a totally empty statement. If Obama is serious when he says he’ll stand with democratic movements, he should put his money where is mouth is.

History is in the making in the Middle East, and we should be sure we’re on the right side of it.

Election Fraud in Afghanistan Throws Country into Tumult

President Hamid Karzai today ordered the delay of the new Parliament by another month, which would bring the total months the state has gone without a parliament to five. International backers, who have invested millions of dollars into monitoring and validating the elections, insist the results are valid despite the uncovering of widespread fraud.

Had Mr. Karzai acknowledged that the election were indeed valid, and allowed the new Parliament to be inaugurated, then the Pashtuns (an ethnic group which Mr. Karzai belongs to) would have lost their majority. In the past this body of representatives acted as a virtual rubber stamp for the President’s policies. This conflict of interest makes Mr. Karzai’s concerns of election fraud seem corrupt at best, and dictatorial at worst. Many Western diplomats have been scrambling to persuade the President to inaugurate the parliament. Western officials speaking on condition of anonymity to the New York Times wondered “Is a delay the endgame, or is it no parliament for another year that’s the endgame, or is it a throw-out of Parliament altogether?”

Not only would this have massive repercussions for the legitimacy of the government by Afghanis and by the international community, but it could also threaten to heave the country into violent political protests and upheaval. A loss on the good governance front could also play directly into the hands of fundamentalist Islamists, who argue that an Islamic approach to government would be better for Afghans.

The election committee in charge of certifying the results has said that the results are final and there is no legal mechanism for changing that. Fortunately for Mr. Karzai, Afghanistan is so corrupt, there are always ‘extra legal’ ways of getting things done. One thing he has done along these lines is appoint a “special court” to investigate the fraud (I use quotations because according to the Afghan constitution this court is completely illegal). This same special court is the one responsible for the request to delay the inauguration.

So this is what ten years, billions and trillions of dollars, thousands upon thousands of lives, and the loss of international prestige has bought us??? So much for democracy in Afghanistan.

Further Reading:

NY Times: Karzai Delays Afghan Parliament...

Washington Post: Karzai Worried About Election Fraud... Really?

Nation Building in Tunisia Without Humanitarian Intervention

 History is truly in the making this week in Africa. Tunisian President Ben Ali has fled the country, signifying the first Arab country to transfer power via popular protest. This is obviously a huge win for US policy in the Middle East, and we would do well to take a long look at what happened, what didn’t happen, and why.

Many people, including myself, are not surprised that it doesn’t take hundreds of thousands of American teenagers pointing M16’s your way to bring about democracy. Now, granted, Tunisia is not a democracy yet. But the situation looks promising and there are more positive signs of a democratic evolution underway than even in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Over the last decade, Americans have shown a strong commitment to nation building in the Middle East, but Tunisia hasn’t been the focus of this policy. In fact, Ben Ali was ‘our dictator’ who helped in our counter-terrorism efforts. So what the heck worked?

Al Jazeera deserves kudos for its efforts to keep Tunisians informed about what was going on, much like Radio Free Europe did in the velvet revolution. America would do well to take a closer look at how restraint can be coupled with nation building.

The fact is that nation building takes time. General Petraeus has estimated that a nation building effort in Afghanistan would take generations to achieve. The same is true for any country. If Tunisians can find a way to capitalize on the current fervor for good governance, then perhaps Americans have a new example to look to in our efforts to reform the Middle East. Nobody doubts that democracy promotion is important --it’s just how you do it.

Further Reading:

NY Times: Power in Tunisia changes hands 2 times in 24 hours 

Christian Science Monitor: Events in Tunisia bear out Hilary Clinton's Warning to Arab World
Huffington Post: What U.S. diplomacy can learn from Tunisia

Sudanese Independence, With Caveats

President Bashir

Today marks the last election day for the historical vote of succession for the Southern Sudanese people. The whole world is watching with much excitement, as many believe this vote is to be the first step towards restoring peace, stability, and prosperity to this region of the globe.

Another emotion many are experiencing is anxiety. Does the nation have the know-how to be another African success story? Will it become another South Africa? Or Nigeria?

The question is uncertain -- there are only, at this stage, many possibilities.

While having an election is absolutely a positive signpost, an election alone is not merely enough to achieve legitimacy, let alone a working democracy. Southern Sudan (which I suppose probably won't be called that anymore) must build almost from scratch all of the institutions that encompass a democracy, and provide these goods and services to all of its people. This is no easy task, and it takes longer than it does to hold an election. A LOT longer.

Another important signpost to look for will be the emergence of a civil society, preferably a middle class. Currently there is widespread poverty and illiteracy in the south (a vote for succession was made with an open palm rather than pen it in). This does not bode well for the new nation, and its citizens may be likely to elect a 'strong-man' figure rather than an able policy maker.

One last, and probably most immediate obstacle the south faces at the moment is the very person who is overseeing this transition, President Bashir. The President is the first sitting head-of-state to be indicted by the International Criminal Court and charged with genocide -- he has been largely responsible for the violence that has plagued the south in recent decades. Its is hard to believe that the same man who has been perpetrating some of the worst atrocities the world has seen will all of a sudden show a gesture of good will.

Looking at other recent elections in Africa (Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe) we would do well to, yes, celebrate the historical event; but lets just sit back and watch a little longer before we crack open the champagne.

If however, President Bashir does not prove to be an obstacle and the south does succeed it will bring freedom to millions of oppressed people. Good governance, however, will take longer.



Related Reading:

LA Times: In South Sudan, the future beckons and sobers

Christian Science Monitor: As Sudan votes in referendum, US shows continued involvement

NY Times: Roots of Bitterness in a Region Threaten Sudan's Future