Can someone give a good explanation why the world’s trend to democracy has skipped over the Arab world? I don’t think there has been a single Arab state who has been replaced in a democratic way.
Twenty or thirty years ago, almost all of Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa, Eastern and South Eastern Asia were also under autocratic rule. But now it is hard to find a non-democratic state in all of those places. Why has this not happened in the Arab world?
I don’t think you can associate the reason with Islam, since non-Arab Islamic countries such as Turkey, Indonesia, and even Iran have relative democracies.
What you have there is a wonderful example of advanced technology and easy money being given to a still primitive society. Because of the demand for their oil and the money involved, they are powerful enough to resist change – except in areas of luxury. Which is one reason why you still see so many of them wearing their native dress, clinging to ancient traditions and generally viewing the rest of the world with some hostility.
This happens in many of the middle eastern nations. When technology is dumped on a society which has not grown into it, problems arise. Usually those in power grab as much of it as possible to stay in power and to restrict the growth of their people, depending on what agendas they have themselves.
I can definitely understand why the Arab leadership wouldn’t want democracy – for the same reasons the leadership in Poland, Chile, South Korea and other countries don’t. It threatens their interests. And in most of the Arab world, it threatens a very comfortable lifestyle, powered by oil money. But why doesn’t the average Arab citizen demand a change? The average Egyptian, Iraqi or Moroccan is not very rich, and would benefit from a change.
I don’t think government propoganda can explain it, since there was significant government propoganda in the Eastern Block and in other parts of the world, but the people demanded democracy anyway.
The only example I have seen where a call for democracy was really made was in Algeria, but it was made by Islamic fundamentalists, who likely would have removed the democratic trends anyway.
Yes, we reinstalled the monarchy, but consider the fact that what took over Kuwait (Iraq) was hardly a democracy either.
As for the U.S. government hating middle eastern democracy, I should point out that the U.S. provides aid to the only Middle Eastern democracy that exists – Israel.
I wouldn’t be too quick to call all those Latin American countries democracies. Latin America in general has always had a problem with fascism. It’s no secret that Mexico rigs its elections to keep the ruling party in power. The UN is even monitoring the Mexican elections this year to try to keep things fair. Several other countries are or have been essentially dictatorships with only democratic pretenses (Argentina, Chile, Peru). As stated above, the problem is dumping technology (especially military technology) onto a society that isn’t advanced enough to use it properly.
The U.S. as a whole does not support the formation of new “democracies” because such democracies are hard to control. It is that simple. We’re OK with nations who’s citizens are culturally similar (France, England, Canada) or whom we complete control to create from scratch (Japan) but the U.S. government is (and has always been) VERY uneasy with self-determination in countries that don’t think and act like we do. Ask yourself why the U.S. has propped up dictatorships throughout history, and it’s plainly obvious. Because it’s much easier to control one man who rules his land for 20 years than to attempt to understand the fickle voters of a nation whose culture we don’t understand. Oh, sure, we nominally support “democracy” in small countries with little to give us economically, like Croatia or Sierra Leone, but do we demand democratic reforms in China? Why did this country support autocratic leaders in nations like Argentina and Saudi Arabia? Because these countries have one of two things: Raw Materials or a Market. They either have goods we need or a place to sell our goods.
It’s obvious why we don’t support “democracy” in countries with predominantly Islamic population: We need their oil, and it’s much easier to influence a few “benevolent dictators (chuckle)” than a few hundred million voters to make that oil availible to us.
How is the United States responsible for Middle Eastern government? It might surprise some of you to realize that these countries are sovereign nations which actually govern themselves without any help or hindrance from the US.
IMHO, it’s a matter of culture combined with economics. Democracy has never been an institution in the middle east. For most of the history of that region, tribes control the daily life of the people led by a cheiftain or sheikh. Hell, in places like Yemen, the Sheikhs are in more control of the “government” than any officials. Kings, emirs, & sheikhs have been the cultural norm for centuries and are now still de rigeur in the minds of the people.
Iran, Turkey, and Israel are different than the Arab countries. You remember what the Shah was trying to do before the religious (cultural& economic to boot) backlash caught up with him? But now things are slowly starting to change. Khatami’s party is riding a younger wave of general reform only 20 years after the revolution. Though they are Muslims, they are also Persians and that means you can’t lump them in neatly with the rest of the Arab world.
Turkey was “forced” into a democracy. After WWI, the “sick man of Europe” was given extreme unction and had to change. It could have probably slipped back into some kind of sultan fronted regime just content to keep the Anatolian peninsula if not for Kemal Mustafa Ataturk. His impassioned drive for moderization and westernization brought about most of what you see in the country today. Mind you, I did say most.
Israel is a product of the West and the 20th century and as such wouldn’t have been established as anything other than a western democracy (or something resembling one) Besides, with the house of David kaput who would take over? ;j (Never thought I would ever have cause to use the Happy Chassid) Anyway there my $.02 worth of over-generalizations and simplifications.
After the turn of the last century, there was an Arab intellectual movement, that dreamed of the rebirth of the arab world. The hope was that this world would blossom as it did under the caliphate. The reasoning was that with the oil riches, and education, the arab world would rival europe in terms of its economic might. This never happened-I read where the nation of Finland (3.5 million people) has more economic output than the whole Arab world. Even with the oil, these countries are ectually in a state of decline-very few manufacture any high-technology goods of any kind, and they seem unable to keep their bright young people home (these people seem to prefer to live in europe or the USA). Israel, on the other hand, has grown its economy impressively(of course with massive American aid). Still, one wonders where the arabs went wrong?
Good responses, all. I would go further in pointing out that popular, grass-roots movements tend to be Islamic rather than democratic. Existing governments regard this as a threat and use it to justify maintaining tight control, as in Algeria for example.
Little Nemo:
We understand your point, but surely the idea that democracy is good and autocratic regimes are bad is not just an arrogant American opinion. If the question is, why are some countries democratic and others not, then given the fact that the United States if the oldest and most significant democracy, the influence of the US or lack thereof is a legitimate factor. Look no further than the US for why Japan is democratic, for example.
I was recently in Pakistan. They are very poor there; they don’t have the advantage of oil production. They have had an off-again/on-again democracy. They are currently being run by a military general, who calls himself the Chief Officer. I guess he wants to run the place like a corporation.
I don’t know the answer to the OP question, but I’ll give you some firsthand observations that surprised me:
a. Everybody was genuinely friendly, so I don’t buy the “animosity to the west” angle. I’m white and stuck out like a sore thumb. Many people asked me why America didn’t like Pakistan, and hoped that could change. Three different times kids came up to me on the street and said “Hello, how are you?”. It was obvious from the accent that this was the only english phrase they knew, and they weren’t begging; it was an honest friendliness.
b. Everybody was happy with the military running the government. Well, maybe not happy, they had complaints about the government like anywhere else in the world. But they were way happier with it than the previous democratic government which was very corrupt. I don’t think they were lying, as I know Pakistanis in the U.S. who tell me the same.
c. Yeah, you couldn’t vote, but it wasn’t a heavy-handed dictatorship. There weren’t people on the corners with guns, or newspapers being shut down or anything.
Anyway, I don’t know why democracy hasn’t worked for them. I think you need to see a new system bring you benefits before you support it, and at least in the case of Pakistan that system hasn’t worked yet.
Theocratic regimes, for obvious reasons, are inimical to democratic forms of government. They are competing for the same mindshare and resources.
Islam does not recognize the secular/non-secular divisions
we maintain in western democratic traditions and it seems non-sensical to them (we didn’t recognize this distinction until few hundred years ago ourselves).
Regardless of the US notion that US style democracy is “good for what ails ya” regardless of culture, most Islamic countries to the degree they remain faithful to Islam will never embrace democratic traditions because, in real terms, it requires requires replacing Koranic centered, theocratically mediated rule with the secular Rule of Law and this isn’t going to happen anytime soon regardless of how many satellite dishes and PC’s they have.
I’m not knocking democracy. In my opinion, it’s the best government. Only when a government is answerable to its citizens does it have an unavoidable duty to act in their best interest.
What I was responding to was the opinion implied by several posters that the reason that many Middle Eastern countires did not have democratic governments was because the United States wanted it that way. But historically, the US is a latecomer in the Middle East. We had no real influence or policy there until the 1950’s by which time most of the present forms of government were already in place.
I find it bizarre and amusing to hear people suggest that the U.S. can force democracy on other nations. That’s arrogance beyond my wildest imaginings. The population of a country are either ready for democracy, or they’re not.
I also find it bizarre that countries such as Egypt, Yemen, and Indonesia are cited as “democratic.” Democratic, sure in the same way that the Communist regimes were – they have elections where you can vote for the only candidate. It’s just that in many of these countries, and Mexico is a well-cited example, the ruling party knows how to disguise it well.
And the OP thinks that Africa is mostly democratic??? The true democracies in Africa are few and far between. Nigeria had a reasonably “clean” election about four years ago; the winner was immediately tossed into jail by the military dictator.
Sadly enough, most third world countries (or whatever the proper term is nowadays) are military dictatorships, or ruled by the elitist (single) party. The Arab world does not have a monopoly.
In the Middle East, the sole exception is Israel, which is indeed a democracy, with a free press.
We’d best define our terms… Hard to call Israel a democracy when a significant percentage of residents have limited movement, employment… Granted, the Israeli gov’t may feel some concern over the sympathies of Palestinian [and other Arab, Levantine, etc…] residents, but it’s hardly democratic by the US definition [such as it is] since last I looked we weren’t pursuing the analogous action of requiring all the I-hate-the-Federal-government survivalists in Idaho to get travel papers to leave Boise.
Egypt Government Executive power is held by the president, who is nominated by parliament and approved by public referendum for a six-year term. I don’t think that having the holders of the executive power being elected by a popular vote is a necessary condition for a democracy. For example, in Switzerland (which is a democracy), the seven members of the cabinet that holds executive power are chosen by the swiss “congress.”
Tunisia Government Tunisia is governed under the 1959 constitution, as amended in 1988; the president and members of the chamber of deputies are popularly elected every five years. The prime minister and cabinet are appointed by the president.
Yemen Government The president is the head of state and is elected by popular vote for a five-year term. The unicameral house of representatives has 301 members, who are popularly elected to four-year terms. The main political parties are the General People’s Congress and the Islamic Reform Grouping or Isiah party.
CKDextHavn, the source that I used (see above) says that Yemen has two major political parties. The CIA world factbook lists 12 political parties. I’m not sure how powerful each party is, but I thought elections were not a foregone conclusion in that country. As far as the parties being “elitist”, in the USA one can find many articles about the woes of third-party candidates getting on the ballot for presidential elections. Many states have laws that make it very difficult for a third-party candidate to get on the ballot.
The Information Please site was a little incomplete. A non-democratic country can, and usually does, allow more than one party to give the impression of a democracy. You can read about the state of democracy in the various countries in the Middle East at:
I stick by my original definition: a democratic country is one that the leader has been replaced in a democratic way. The US falls in that category. Syria does not. Does Mexico? I don’t know. But you can’t find one Arab country that does.