Barry Rubin comments on Mideast developments. Even the most cautious optimism is worth noting from this source, imo:
Mar. 7, 2005 20:12 | Updated Mar. 7, 2005 20:15
The Region: A new dawn?
By BARRY RUBIN
What the heck is going on in the Middle East? Is it the dawn of a liberal democratic era? Maybe. Does it make the much-reviled US policy look good? Definitely. Are liberal Arabs now an important factor in the region's politics for the first time ever? Absolutely.
One is reminded of William Wordsworth's celebration of the onset of Europe's age of democratic revolutions. "Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive," he wrote, "But to be young was very heaven!"
The popular upheaval in Lebanon against Syrian domination is glorious, especially important as the first real example of mass political participation in a moderate cause in the modern Middle East. The outcome could be a Syrian withdrawal and Lebanon's revival as a truly sovereign state enjoying domestic peace. Syria, the last consistently radical Arab state, is being undermined.
This is good, but it is more of a nationalist rather than liberal or democratic movement. The leaders, at least so far, are the same old communal bosses who have run the country for decades. A turning point was the changing of sides by Walid Jumblatt, a feudal, hereditary warlord in progressive clothing who was recently mouthing the most extreme radical slogans. The coalition is largely one of Christians, Sunni Muslims, and Jumblatt's Druse with relatively little participation by Shi'ite Muslims, the country's largest single group.
Maybe they will force the Syrians out, but it is not impossible that Damascus will basically maintain the status quo by outlasting the opposition. And while the Lebanese spring is a wonderful thing it is also limited – so far, at least – to returning the country to the pre-1975 status quo.
Iraq, too, seems headed in a good direction. Its people are certain to be better off and will no doubt succeed in crushing the insurgency. By forcing parties to form a coalition to get a big majority, the outcome may contribute to pluralism.
At the same time, though, it was communal nationalists rather than liberals who dominated the elections. This is not a bad thing for electoral democracy. After all, if the Kurdish and Shi'ite communal nationalists – the Shi'ite victors are also largely Islamist-oriented – know they can win at the ballot box they will embrace this political method.
Yet there is still a strong possibility of communal civil war, conflicts within each camp, and a regime that might be unstable or undemocratic.
Unfortunately, the remaining cases – the Palestinians, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia – provide less change than it seems. New PA leader Mahmoud Abbas may bring reform, end terrorism, implement a real cease-fire and make peace possible, but there are many doubts, and his anti-terrorist action is starting to seem largely limited to Western media interviews.
Consider, too, his new cabinet in which corrupt politicians and revolutionaries were thrown out and replaced by experts. A good development. But if it were up to Abbas or Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei, the old guard would still be in office. It was the Palestinian Legislative Council that forced the change, a sign of democracy but also a reminder of how much power remains with the Fatah establishment. Hamas's big victory in local council elections is a reminder that fair elections can play into radical Islamist hands.
President Hosni Mubarak's much-cheered permission for opposition candidates to run against him is largely a public relations stunt. Candidates must come from parties, parties must be officially registered, and Mubarak controls the registration. The last man to register a party successfully is now in prison accused of counterfeiting petition signatures. The regime is well on the way to setting up one more rigged election.
Saudi maneuvering is equally cynical. Holding some local elections and appointing a woman to a government job seems a sufficient gesture to buy the monarchy years more of teaching radical Islam to young people and keeping the country in an iron grip.
The one place where the elections seem to have stirred real enthusiasm was among the Shi'ite minority. Again, this is a case of communal demands rather than a thirst for reform as such. The problem is that if elections are mainly a tool for promoting such group ambitions they can lead to civil strife between communities contending for state power. So far, too, attempts to organize opposition movements in Egypt and Saudi Arabia have also shown considerable public apathy.
Of course, by allowing even minimal change dictators may be making fatal miscalculations, lifting the lid enough to let out a liberal genie who will sweep them away. Each step builds a momentum encouraging the masses to perceive the dictators more in terms of clay feet than iron fists.
After Wordsworth saw the French Revolution firsthand, he wrote of Paris: "It seemed a place of fear/ Defenseless as a wood where tigers roam."
That's a good description of the Middle East of the last 50 years. Now things look to be improving. But let's not sacrifice careful peering for cheering, however justified it may seem.
The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya. His forthcoming book is The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East.
jpost.com |
