While a section of the Western media continues to predict an âexplosion of the Arab streetâ, it is possible that Arab, and Muslim politics in general, may be seeking other, more institutionalized, forms of expression. Starting this year, the Muslim world has witnessed a string of conferences, all devoted to the issue of democratization. Some of these conferences, in Kuala-Lumpur, the Malaysian capital, in Istanbul, Turkeyâs cultural and business center, in the Yemeni capital Sanaa, and in the Egyptian Mediterranean port of Alexandria, for example, have come out with clear statements that democratic reform is the only way for out for Muslim nations caught in âan historic quagmireâ.
| Most have said something along the lines of "No, no! Never!" |
The issue will be at the center of another conference next month to be held in Jordan under the auspices of the Davos-based World Economic Forum. After that the issue of how best to guide the Muslim world toward reform will be discussed at the NATO summit in Istanbul and during the G-8 summit to be held in the United States in June. This is not the first time that Muslims identify democracy as a panacea for their political, social and cultural ills. Many such conferences were held in the 19th and 20th centuries which also witnessed the short-lived victory of democratic forces in both Turkey and Iran. By the mid-1950s, however, there were hardly any genuine democrats in the Muslim world.
| That's because they confused "individual liberty" with "democracy." Sloppy terminology produces sloppy results... |
The intellectual and political life in most Muslim countries was dominated either by Marxist or other advocates of leftist totalitarianism or conservative religious forces.
| Not a libertarian impulse to be seen for thousands of miles. Liberty leads inexorably to freedom of religion, and y'can't have that... |
In the 1960s and 1970s the left, including its nationalist version, was in the ascendancy in most Muslim countries. From the late 1970s onward, however, Islamism, in its different versions, emerged as the dominant political force especially in the Middle East and North Africa. The speedy collapse of the Taleban in Kabul and the Baath in Baghdad, in 2002 and 2003, however, opened a new chapter in which advocates of democratization may have an opportunity to address the broader audiences at least in some Muslim countries.
| I can't recall ever having heard the word "liberty" uttered by someone wearing a turban... |
The reason for this is not hard to guess. The Baâath regime in Baghdad represented the most radical version in the Muslim world of leftist nationalism inspired by both Nazism and Communism. If anybody could have created the Arab nationalist Utopia it was Saddam Hussein. But he ended up in a hole near Takrit. The Taleban regime for its part represented the ultimate âmustâ in Islamism. No one could claim to be more Islamist than Mulla Muhammad Omar. But he, too, ended up hiding in a hole in Uruzgan.
| Failure would seem to be a good indicator that something else would work better. But if the "something else" is unthinkable, what's a turban to do? |
There is a growing sentiment in the Muslim world that their political systems have reached a deadend and that the only way out is some form of democratization. The old debate on whether Islam is compatible with democracy is hardly engaged these days. The issue now is the necessity of democracy for Muslims rather than its compatibility with Islam. Even the most conservative of Muslim regimes are now committed to the creation of elected organs of government.
| Which is not the same thing as guaranteeing individual liberties. It's form versus substance... |
There is, of course, no guarantee that such elections will not be âfixedâ to prolong the domination of the existing ruling elites at last in the short-run. Nor could anyone be sure that some power-sharing at the formal political level will necessarily broaden the base of regimes that use complex networks of business interests, economic tools, and security services to perpetuate their domination. Nevertheless, it is refreshing that, for the first time in more than half a century, the political discourse in the world of Islam is increasingly dominated by the democratic lexicon. It is interesting to see turbaned mullas discussing Locke and Tocqueville in television talk-shows beamed from âholyâ cities. And to hear military dictators donning the habit of champions of democracy is more than just amusing. Even the traditional rulers and the Stalinist-style state-owned radio and television networks still in place, now speak of elections, human rights, equality for women, and, ultimately, democracy.
| It was hee-hee-larious, watching Muammar discussing how to practice capitalism as a revolutionary activity last year... |
Even in the closest of Muslim societies, words and phrases that denote democratization are being heard, and read: Elections, reform, change, opening, dialogue, participation, consent, pluralism, separation of powers, the rule of law, due process, free enterprise, civil society, good governance, human rights, gender equality, accountability, and transparency.
| Libery? Freedom of religion? Freedom of speech? Freedom of association? The right to be left alone? |
Some of these words and phrases had not been heard anywhere in public in the Muslim world for decades. Others are neologisms, coined to express the new aspirations of many Muslims. Cynics might suggest that all this is nothing but the compliment that vice pays to virtue. The ruling elites may be using all this talk of democracy as a tactic to weather the storm created by the events in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then revert to their well-tested methods of rule by violence and bribery.
| Any discussion of the difference between ruling and governing? Still missing the point, I see... |
But cynics are likely to be wrong, as often they are. A change of mainstream discourse is a necessary prelude to structural political reform. Peer pressure and the force of example are likely to be important instruments in furthering the cause of democratization in the Muslim world, especially as far as the laggards are concerned. Some Muslim countries are already building viable democracies while others have launched a process of reform that cannot be reversed at will.
| Sure it can. Look what happened when the ayatollahs chased the shah out. The willing horse took to its old harness. It was only when it came down with galls that it started to complain. |
A collective Muslim commitment to reform, especially in difficult areas such as the status of women and the place of the Shariah (Islamic law) in the legal system, will enable the regimes that still fear a backlash from domestic reactionary sources to place change in the broader context of the Islamic family. The rest of the world can help not by dictating the rhythm, and tempo of reform, let alone its details, but by supporting those Muslim regimes that show a genuine commitment to change while ostracizing those that do not. Muslim politics as limited to palaces, barracks, mosques, and streets has led to what must be regarded as the most glaring collective failure for any group of nations in history. It is, perhaps, time to envisage other institutions, notably political parties, Parliaments and law courts as the focal points of political life in the Muslim world.
| I guess my pessimism should be alleviated by the fact that this appeared in Arab News. But it's not. There have been similar articles before, and the writers were simply fired. |
|