Tweet
On 'Poly, we generally have a bleak picture of the internal politics in Middle East countries. However, the bleakness is far from obvious IMO. This thread is to discuss whether there is a potential for democracy in the Middle East.
My contention is that the democratization of the Middle East has had new, significant perspectives in the last few years.
Firstly, Saudi Arabia had its first elections ever last year, local elections. It is a significant step IMO, because it shows that the monarch accepts the idea of not being the only ruler of the country. Before, the monarch was the only arbiter between the conflicting demands of the radical religious, the moderate religious, and foreign pressure. Now, the decisions are likely to become increasingly decentralized.
Secondly, Egypt had contested presidential elections, where Mubarak won with "only" 80%. Of course, it's definitely not a democratic vote. However, that election sparked a long-awaited political debate, in which the population in interested, and in which there was a relative free speech. For the first time, the Egyptian political scene alked about economics, domestic problems, and the campaign wasn't only about blaming the US or Israel.
Considering that the Mubarak regime is sustained by the apathy of the population, the appearance of a public opinion is a considerable step for democratization in the future.
The parliamentary elections of last december showed that apathy is clearly not there anymore. While the campaign was relatively free, the voting was marred with voter-intimidation, and even sometimes with the police firing on would-be opposition (Muslim Brotherhood) voters. Yet, the opposition made huge gains, and the debate was genuine. I think Egypt is set for having a legal Islamic government at one point, if it wants to avoid being a new Algeria.
As for Iran, it looks dire, but I beg to differ. Ahmadinejad is the first president who isn't a cleric. Besides, since he isn't in open conflict with the theocrats, this layman becomes the public voice of Iran. IMO, this situation can lead to two positives: 1. that the Iranians identify more with their president as an actual leader rather than as a puppet, and 2. that the presidential position is strengthened. Obviously, Ahmadinejad won't be the one who'll democratize Iran. But if he strengthens his job, the next president might well be the one who makes a big difference.
It is also noticeable that the reactionary Parliament elected in 2004 (well, "conservative" by Iranian stadards) has elected the first non-clerical speaker. Ahmadinejad's government also has very few clerics (only 2). I think it does speak for a laymanization of Iranian politics.
I can't really say for Iraq, because the situation is way too chaotic right now. The future of democracy in Iraq will mucho depend on whether the country splits or not, and on whether the violence results in a civil war or not.
My contention is that the democratization of the Middle East has had new, significant perspectives in the last few years.
Firstly, Saudi Arabia had its first elections ever last year, local elections. It is a significant step IMO, because it shows that the monarch accepts the idea of not being the only ruler of the country. Before, the monarch was the only arbiter between the conflicting demands of the radical religious, the moderate religious, and foreign pressure. Now, the decisions are likely to become increasingly decentralized.
Secondly, Egypt had contested presidential elections, where Mubarak won with "only" 80%. Of course, it's definitely not a democratic vote. However, that election sparked a long-awaited political debate, in which the population in interested, and in which there was a relative free speech. For the first time, the Egyptian political scene alked about economics, domestic problems, and the campaign wasn't only about blaming the US or Israel.
Considering that the Mubarak regime is sustained by the apathy of the population, the appearance of a public opinion is a considerable step for democratization in the future.
The parliamentary elections of last december showed that apathy is clearly not there anymore. While the campaign was relatively free, the voting was marred with voter-intimidation, and even sometimes with the police firing on would-be opposition (Muslim Brotherhood) voters. Yet, the opposition made huge gains, and the debate was genuine. I think Egypt is set for having a legal Islamic government at one point, if it wants to avoid being a new Algeria.
As for Iran, it looks dire, but I beg to differ. Ahmadinejad is the first president who isn't a cleric. Besides, since he isn't in open conflict with the theocrats, this layman becomes the public voice of Iran. IMO, this situation can lead to two positives: 1. that the Iranians identify more with their president as an actual leader rather than as a puppet, and 2. that the presidential position is strengthened. Obviously, Ahmadinejad won't be the one who'll democratize Iran. But if he strengthens his job, the next president might well be the one who makes a big difference.
It is also noticeable that the reactionary Parliament elected in 2004 (well, "conservative" by Iranian stadards) has elected the first non-clerical speaker. Ahmadinejad's government also has very few clerics (only 2). I think it does speak for a laymanization of Iranian politics.
I can't really say for Iraq, because the situation is way too chaotic right now. The future of democracy in Iraq will mucho depend on whether the country splits or not, and on whether the violence results in a civil war or not.
Comment