DEMOCRACY OR ISLAMOCRACY

PARIS 26, Mar. (IPS) "It is astonishing that each time claims on freedom of speech, free elections and gender equality strongly arises, Arab and Muslim leaders immediately resort to counter attacks, considering these claims to be in contradiction with their culture and identity. What they are saying is actually that despotism and repression is more conform to Islamic and Arab values than democracy and liberty", according to an Iranian scholar in Denmark.

In an article carried out on Thursday by the Paris-based "Iran va Jahan" (Iran and the World) internet news service, Dr. Mehdi Mozzaffari of the Aarhus University of Copenhagen counters despotic leaders in the Arab Middle East and Muslim world arguing that democracy should not be imposed from the outside, saying "If demands for change come from the outside, it is because nothing has been done in this direction by Middle Eastern autocrats who have been holding on to power for decades".

"Instead of a Philadelphian inspired democracy, they (Arab and Muslim leaders) are looking for "Islamocracy", or Islam and democracy. "Islamic democracy" as president (Mohammad) Khatami of Iran formulated it means selection instead of election, a parliament without real attributes, a judiciary without independence, political parties without liberty, and mass communication without a voice", he pointed out. It is of common knowledge that democracy cannot be established in one day. But, one day, the process of democratisation must begin. This day has now arrived to the Middle East. Middle Eastern societies are facing a painful, dramatic and decisive choice between democracy and Islamocracy. It is not that the Middle East is a particularly fertile terrain for democracy, but rather because democracy is a necessity.

Currently, the Islamic world is producing Oil, Terrorism and Emigration. This "Islamic Bermuda Triangle" represents a major challenge to the world. Until recently, a combination of oil and despotism was tolerated and even supported by western powers; particularly by the USA. The global terrorism, the perpetual waves of emigration, the attempts to access nuclear weapons, and the propagation of Islamism as a new totalitarian ideology which is claiming the conquest of the world by all means is too much to be ignored.

Unfortunately, it is illusory to think that the change in Muslim societies will come from within, alone. Four interrelated factors are hindering a successful internal and autonomous change: Oriental despotism, the rentier economy, the domination of Islam, and external interventionism. These elements constitute a Gordian knot that can only be cut off by Alexander's sword.

The USA's intervention in both Afghanistan and Iraq must be understood as an imperative chirurgical intervention to break this vicious chain. American plans to democratise the "Greater Middle East" are also a proposed remedy to the agony of Muslims.

During decades, Americans have been strongly criticized for their support to dictatorial regimes. Now, when Americans are firmly demonstrating their will for democratisation of the Middle East, they are again accused being too ambitious, too naïve and hypocritical! In this respect, Professor Amitai Etzioni refers to the Bush Administration’s plan as an "American Fantasy" (International Herald Tribune of 5 March 2004).

The fantasy is rather to await the process of democratisation to start by itself and to progress slowly, gently and peacefully from within the Middle Eastern societies. It is not so much because demands for democracy, justice and humanity are absent from the Middle Eastern arena. Forces for democracy in this region are under an organized, systematic and deep going repression.

American plans cannot make miracles. Nevertheless, they do make a difference and they have especially changed the agenda. Already the paradigm has changed in the Middle East. For the first time in history, democracy figures on the agenda. Dynamism is going to replace stagnation and brutality gives place for dialogue. This is not a fantasy; it is a fact and it is real. The constitution of Afghanistan is now in place. The transitory constitution of Iraq is signed. Of course it is not fully conformed to Max Weber's ideal type of democracy; but there is no doubt that it will be moving in this direction.

The new wave of democratisation is so strong that Arab and Muslim autocrats are trembling. In the name of national, cultural and religious identity, president Mubarak of Egypt together with president Assad of Syria and the Saudi family tries to build up a 'Refusal front'.

It is astonishing that each time claims on freedom of speech, free elections and gender equality strongly arises, Arab and Muslim leaders immediately resort to counter attacks, considering these claims to be in contradiction with their culture and identity. What they are saying is actually that despotism and repression is more conform to Islamic and Arab values than democracy and liberty! They also argue that democracy should not be imposed from the outside.

If demands for change come from the outside, it is because nothing has been done in this direction by Middle Eastern autocrats who have been holding on to power for decades. Instead of a Philadelphian inspired democracy, they are looking for Islamocracy. Islamocracy or 'Islamic democracy' as president Khatami of Iran formulated it means selection instead of election, a parliament without real attributes, a judiciary without independence, political parties without liberty, and mass communication without a voice.

The time for Islamocracy is over and the waves of democratisation have finally reached the shores of the wider Middle East. Max Weber would be delighted to witness the result of this historical experience.

Editore’s note : Dr. Mehdi Mozaffari is a professor of political science at the University of Aarhus - Denmark. His recent book is Globalization and Civilizations" (ed.), Routledge, 2002. Also, by Professor Mozaffari:How To Combat Islamist Terrorism Without Combating Islam?

Now, when Americans are firmly demonstrating their will for democratisation of the Middle East, they are again accused being too ambitious, too naïve and hypocritical! In this respect, Professor Amitai Etzioni refers to the Bush Administration’s plan as an "American Fantasy" (International Herald Tribune of 5 March 2004).

American fantasy: Instant democracy
Amitai Etzioni IHT Thursday, March 4, 2004
http://www.iht.com/articles/508762.html

WASHINGTON The Bush administration plans to put before the next Group of Eight meeting an ambitious program to democratize the "greater Middle East." Yet study upon study has shown how false is the promise to democratize countries with little preparation for democracy, especially if it is done on the run. A study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace found that of the 18 regime changes to which U.S. ground troops were committed, only five resulted in sustained democratic rule. These include Germany, Japan and Italy, in which conditions prevailed that are lacking in large parts of the world; Panama and Grenada, listed as democratized, actually have yet to earn this title.

The difficulties that the United States and its allies have in democratizing Afghanistan and Iraq are but the most recent examples in a long list of failures, which include Bosnia, Cambodia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Kosovo, Somalia and South Vietnam.

Democracy is a delicate plant that thrives only if the soil is carefully cultivated. Even an incomplete list of what it takes to secure democracy suffices to show how hollow are promises to mass-produce it. For democracy to take root, there must be a fair level of law and order, economic development and education; a sizable middle class; respect for the rule of law; independent judges; and a rich fabric of voluntary associations.

Once these are in place, constructing the regime requires political leaders and parties able to compete freely; open and fair elections; separation of powers; a low level of corruption; protection of minority rights; and freedom of association, expression, and the press. I know this is a mouthful, but history has shown that less will not do.

When many of these factors are lacking, and when big powers are quick to declare victory and go home - especially as elections loom - they lower the definition of democracy, pinning the label on whatever they have concocted. Elections are a frequent fixture of these sleight-of-hand democratizations, disregarding the fact that elections are regularly held in places like China, Iran and Singapore. In Iraq, neither elections nor caucuses will result in anything resembling democracy.

At best, the new regime will be a very unsteady coalition. One group, the Shiites, is controlled by mullahs who already govern southern Iraq and will control whoever represents them. Another group, the Kurds, is controlled by rival tribal chieftains who govern the north. Together, they control about 80 percent of the population. If they work together, which would be no mean feat, it would be more like a coalition between the church and the mafia in old Sicily than anything resembling a democratic government.

Assuming that the country will not break up once the Americans recede, the government of Iraq is more likely to be headed by a relatively benign autocrat, à la Vladimir Putin, than by a true representative of the people, accountable to a Parliament and scrutinized by a free press and a free people. Alternatively, Iraq will follow the way Afghanistan's "democracy" is evolving - with a weak, imported leader who cannot rely on his own people and barely dares to leave the capital, and with large parts of the country controlled by warlords and ethnic tribes.

A high level of corruption must be expected, as we have already seen among members of the temporary Iraqi government. Although the new Iraqi government may not introduce a strict Muslim regime, it is likely to enforce various Islamic concepts. It is better if such governments are not labeled democratic, so that when they lose credibility democracy's name is not muddied. If we must label such regimes, "post-tyrannical" will do.

I cannot stress enough my disagreement with those who hold that Arabs are congenitally incapable of democracy. I merely follow a sociological giant, Max Weber, who showed that in some cultures economic and political development is more difficult to achieve than in others. Even in more favorable settings than the Middle East it took a long time to lay the foundation for something that resembles the real thing. After all, British and American democracy did not exactly develop overnight under the tutelage of an alienating foreign power. The occupation of Japan lasted seven years; it took 10 years before full control was turned back over to the Germans. The people of the Middle East would be best served if the United States and its allies restrained their rhetoric, promised less and delivered more. The most that can be hoped for in the near future is to keep Iraq from falling apart, avoid civil war, provide in the Sunni triangle the level of security already available elsewhere - and let the Iraqi people sort out what regime they are willing to embrace and fight for. Slowly, in time measured in decades rather than years, they may well lay the foundation for a democratic Middle East.

Amitai Etzioni teaches at George Washington University. His book "From Empire to Community: A New Approach to International Relations" will be published in May.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.