Democracy isn't an entirely new idea in the Middle East, says Rashid Khalidi, director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University. Lebanon, Egypt and Syria had relatively democratic parliaments until the 1950s, he says. But in recent decades, the Middle East has been dominated by two types of government: one-party regimes that took power in military coups, and monarchies in which sheiks hold sway.
U.S. vision for Mideast suddenly in greater focus
Analysis by Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY
In his inaugural address in January, President Bush spoke of his determination to spread democracy around the world.
The advance of freedom, he said, was in America's vital interests — and nowhere more than in the Middle East, where past U.S. backing for authoritarian regimes has provoked resentment and fanned terrorism.
In the weeks since Bush spoke, the region has been shaken by extraordinary events that could mark a democratic turning point.
Palestinians chose a new president to replace the autocratic Yasser Arafat, who died Nov. 11. Iraqis voted in unexpectedly large numbers in their country's first free elections in a half-century, braving death threats to elect a new government. From February through April, men in Saudi Arabia are voting for municipal councils — the first such voting since the 1960s.
In Lebanon, the assassination Feb. 14 of a popular politician led to huge anti-government demonstrations in Beirut. The slaying of former prime minister Rafik Hariri prompted the resignation Monday of a pro-Syrian government and brought new calls by the United States, France and others for Syria to end its nearly three-decade-long hold on Lebanon.
Even Egypt, where politics have stagnated for 24 years, is showing signs of change: President Hosni Mubarak said last weekend that Egypt will change its constitution to replace its presidential election system, in which voters say yes or no on a single candidate. In effect, he agreed to let other candidates challenge him in elections this year.
Experts on the region say U.S. rhetoric and policies have had an impact on recent events in the Mideast. But they point to other causes for the sudden tumult.
One is rising public dissatisfaction with the old order. Arab governments have failed to make economic progress or open up to opposition groups. Regimes were already under stress when 19 young Muslim men — 15 from Saudi Arabia — carried out the Sept. 11 attacks. The shock convinced the Bush administration that the United States could no longer simply back the regional status quo.
"As we have learned the hard way, such societies can be breeding grounds for extremists and terrorists who target the United States for supporting the regimes under which they live," Richard Haass, then a top official at the State Department, told the Council on Foreign Relations in 2002. The council is a think tank Haass now heads.
Mohammed Kamal, a professor of political science at Cairo University and an adviser to Egypt's ruling National Democratic Party, says the televised pictures of Iraqis voting on Jan. 30 had a strong effect on people in the region. But he says the elements of change were already in place.
"The war in Iraq has accelerated the process of change but has not started it," Kamal says.
Kamal says ferment in the region has been little noticed but began with the collapse of the Soviet Union and emergence of democratic governments in Eastern Europe over the past 15 years. Over the same period, a new generation came of age with access to satellite television and the Internet.
The prospects for reform in the region remain uncertain and could take a path that might not please the United States.
Iraq's election timetable was driven less by the Bush administration than by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's top Shiite cleric. Khalidi says Sistani pushed for a vote as soon as possible, knowing that it would empower the country's Shiite majority. The government that will emerge in Iraq is almost certain to be less secular and more influenced by Iran, Khalidi adds.
Likewise, events in Lebanon could take an unexpected turn if Syria heeds calls to withdraw its 15,000 troops. One victor may be Hezbollah. The militant Shiite organization, backed by Iran and considered a terrorist group by the United States, could fill a power vacuum left by a Syrian pullout.
In Egypt, the winner of a truly free election might be the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandfather of Islamic fundamentalist organizations. Despite Mubarak's reforms, the group is unlikely to be allowed to participate in September's presidential vote.
Under an amendment to Egypt's constitution likely to be put before voters in May, presidential candidates must be endorsed by parliament and local councils. The Brotherhood, though technically banned, has about 20 members in parliament, not enough to prevail in the 454-member body.
And Mubarak is taking no chances with other popular opposition figures. He has jailed the leader of a new liberal opposition group, the Tomorrow Party. He says its leader, Ayman Nour, forged signatures on a petition to register the group. In protest, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice canceled a planned visit to Egypt this week.
Kamal says he worries that other opposition parties will not put up candidates because they are afraid of losing to Mubarak, who despite his age — 76 — is expected to run for a fifth term. Even so, Kamal says he hopes that Mubarak's decision to allow a contested election "will inject energy into our political life and strengthen pluralism in Egypt for the future."
U.S. vision for Mideast suddenly in greater focus
Analysis by Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY
In his inaugural address in January, President Bush spoke of his determination to spread democracy around the world.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, left, and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon met in Egypt last month.
Moshe Milner, AFP
The advance of freedom, he said, was in America's vital interests — and nowhere more than in the Middle East, where past U.S. backing for authoritarian regimes has provoked resentment and fanned terrorism.
In the weeks since Bush spoke, the region has been shaken by extraordinary events that could mark a democratic turning point.
Palestinians chose a new president to replace the autocratic Yasser Arafat, who died Nov. 11. Iraqis voted in unexpectedly large numbers in their country's first free elections in a half-century, braving death threats to elect a new government. From February through April, men in Saudi Arabia are voting for municipal councils — the first such voting since the 1960s.
In Lebanon, the assassination Feb. 14 of a popular politician led to huge anti-government demonstrations in Beirut. The slaying of former prime minister Rafik Hariri prompted the resignation Monday of a pro-Syrian government and brought new calls by the United States, France and others for Syria to end its nearly three-decade-long hold on Lebanon.
Even Egypt, where politics have stagnated for 24 years, is showing signs of change: President Hosni Mubarak said last weekend that Egypt will change its constitution to replace its presidential election system, in which voters say yes or no on a single candidate. In effect, he agreed to let other candidates challenge him in elections this year.
Democracy isn't an entirely new idea in the Middle East, says Rashid Khalidi, director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University. Lebanon, Egypt and Syria had relatively democratic parliaments until the 1950s, he says. But in recent decades, the Middle East has been dominated by two types of government: one-party regimes that took power in military coups, and monarchies in which sheiks hold sway.
Experts on the region say U.S. rhetoric and policies have had an impact on recent events in the Mideast. But they point to other causes for the sudden tumult.
One is rising public dissatisfaction with the old order. Arab governments have failed to make economic progress or open up to opposition groups. Regimes were already under stress when 19 young Muslim men — 15 from Saudi Arabia — carried out the Sept. 11 attacks. The shock convinced the Bush administration that the United States could no longer simply back the regional status quo.
"As we have learned the hard way, such societies can be breeding grounds for extremists and terrorists who target the United States for supporting the regimes under which they live," Richard Haass, then a top official at the State Department, told the Council on Foreign Relations in 2002. The council is a think tank Haass now heads.
Mohammed Kamal, a professor of political science at Cairo University and an adviser to Egypt's ruling National Democratic Party, says the televised pictures of Iraqis voting on Jan. 30 had a strong effect on people in the region. But he says the elements of change were already in place.
"The war in Iraq has accelerated the process of change but has not started it," Kamal says.
Kamal says ferment in the region has been little noticed but began with the collapse of the Soviet Union and emergence of democratic governments in Eastern Europe over the past 15 years. Over the same period, a new generation came of age with access to satellite television and the Internet.
The prospects for reform in the region remain uncertain and could take a path that might not please the United States.
Iraq's election timetable was driven less by the Bush administration than by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's top Shiite cleric. Khalidi says Sistani pushed for a vote as soon as possible, knowing that it would empower the country's Shiite majority. The government that will emerge in Iraq is almost certain to be less secular and more influenced by Iran, Khalidi adds.
Likewise, events in Lebanon could take an unexpected turn if Syria heeds calls to withdraw its 15,000 troops. One victor may be Hezbollah. The militant Shiite organization, backed by Iran and considered a terrorist group by the United States, could fill a power vacuum left by a Syrian pullout.
In Egypt, the winner of a truly free election might be the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandfather of Islamic fundamentalist organizations. Despite Mubarak's reforms, the group is unlikely to be allowed to participate in September's presidential vote.
Under an amendment to Egypt's constitution likely to be put before voters in May, presidential candidates must be endorsed by parliament and local councils. The Brotherhood, though technically banned, has about 20 members in parliament, not enough to prevail in the 454-member body.
And Mubarak is taking no chances with other popular opposition figures. He has jailed the leader of a new liberal opposition group, the Tomorrow Party. He says its leader, Ayman Nour, forged signatures on a petition to register the group. In protest, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice canceled a planned visit to Egypt this week.
Kamal says he worries that other opposition parties will not put up candidates because they are afraid of losing to Mubarak, who despite his age — 76 — is expected to run for a fifth term. Even so, Kamal says he hopes that Mubarak's decision to allow a contested election "will inject energy into our political life and strengthen pluralism in Egypt for the future." |
