“The answer is that one would like to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.” - Machiavelli
Beginning in January, 2011 the Islamic world has witnessed grassroots movements calling for more political and economic freedoms in the states of the Republic of Tunisia, the Arab Republic of Egypt, and Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. It first started in Tunisia when protestors, hard hit by the economy, began protesting in the streets. This phenomenon has become known as the Jasmine Revolution. This largely unexpected and sudden movement resulted in the resignation of the authoritarian president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, and a new interim government consisting of oppositionist leaders.
Only days after this shocking event rang through the Islamic world protesters took the street in the Arab Republic of Egypt calling for the resignation of President Mubarak and new political elections to be held. President Mubarak, known as an authoritarian leader in the Middle Eastern world and violator of political freedoms for almost thirty years, attempted to use once again heavy handed measures to stop the protests. His order to send police and military forces to stop the massive protests were futile and only seemed to encourage them even more. On February 1, CNN reported that President Mubarak would not run for reelection in the next scheduled election in September. But such a statement is too little too late for the vast majority of Egyptians. They want him out of power and most likely he will be within a matter of weeks.
The Kingdom of Jordan too is seeing civil unrest. Jordan, a relatively modern Islamic country and important ally to the United States is experiencing massive protests largely due to economic reasons. On February 1, 2011, King Abdullah II of Jordan fired his government after a demand from protesters in the country for more democratic government and accountability. New Jordanian Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit has been given the task to implement “real political reform in the king’s vision of comprehensive reform, modernization, and development.” Other countries in the region are witnessing talk of civil unrest – Syria, and Yemen.
Let these recent phenomenons in the Middle East be a warning to dictatorships, oligarchies, and theocracies around the world. The famous saying from Machiavelli’s The Prince,” it is far safer to be feared than loved...,” does not necessarily hold true. If these events in the Tunisia, Egypt, and Jordan, teach us anything it is that repressive regimes are not immune to revolutions.
Suddam Hussein, the former evil dictator of Iraq, was able to hold onto power due to his practical nature. He knew the importance of keeping enough of Iraqi people happy. That is why Iraq boasted a strong economy and a decent size middle class. Members of important families including those in the middle-class were even allowed to leave the country for vacation.
The technocrat oligarchy that rules the People’s Republic of China have given many economic freedoms to its’ citizens; they understand the importance the economy has on peoples’ opinion about the government in power. China’s pragmatic economic policies for the last 30 years have allowed the communist party to stay in power and kept many Chinese’ minds off political freedoms.
These examples of authoritarian leaders understand the limits of their authoritarian power over their people; something many leaders in the Middle Eastern world seem to forget. Whether a country is a democracy or an authoritarian regime, it ultimately stays in power at the will of the people. The leaders of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Syria continue to repress their citizens at their own peril.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Egypt could be a fertile ground for the US to shine, by helping the Egyptians with the birth of their fledgling democracy. Or, it could become a quagmire if the US shows itself to be weak and propping up a reviled and corrupt regime.
The Obama administration needs to use its offices to help Mubarak read the writing on the wall, so he can leave peacefully and without additional bloodshed by the Egyptian people. If we continue to allow Mubarak to remain in power, we risk our long friendship with the people of Egypt and harm to US interests in this important US ally.
American foreign policy for the last 18 years has focused on moral intentions on the international stage including furthering democracy to new parts of the globe. Somalia, Kosovo, the War on Terrorism, and the Iraq War have all publically been put in terms as conflict between good and evil. Both democrats and republicans have made such an argument in the past.
America's willingness to have foreign policy built upon hypocrisy is horrible for its' long-term national interests. Often America preaches against political and civil rights violations in countries such as North Korea, Iran, and China yet it has no problem supporting regimes that practice these exact same methods in other parts of the globe. If the Obama Administration continues to support the corrupt regime under Mubarak America's credibility will be severely hurt.
OW, Obama has been the first President willing to break with Mubarak, over the objections of his political foes. He has not been siding with Mubarak.
This situation points out a couple of things. First, armed citizens (with handguns and other private firearms) aren't going to topple governments in the modern age. It is by virtue of being popular, united, and in many respects, civil that the Egyptian opposition grew in strength and credibility. Fantasies of changing the government by force (by "2nd amendment means") are just that, fantasies. Had the Egyptian Army stepped in on the side of Mubarak, this revolution would have died, just as a similar one died in Iran.
Second, it is not as a result of our actions in Iraq that this occured. Our actions in Iraq were the violent overthrow by outside means of a Muslim ruling government by a western, foreign power. It was widely resented around the Arab world, and they had little love for the outcome besides (a weak, secular, corrupt Shiite puppet of Iran). This did not lead to "democracy" breaking out all over. Any such suggestion insults the Arabs of the world on it's face. It is a suggestion that they somehow needed us to "show them the way" as if they didn't understand, hadn't seen or read about, democracy elsewhere. Lebanon, prior to the Syrian and Isreali invasions (and really prior to their own civil war which was in many respects an outgrowth of the Arab-Israeli struggles), was a model democracy in the Middle-East. To suggest that Arabs were too ignorant or cowed to seek out thier own liberties is both the height of hubris and the height of condescension. They have (in the main) been under the autocratic thumb of leaders whom we've sold weapons to, which were used to ensure those leaders stayed in power at the end of the barrel of a gun.
What Egypt's revolution has shown is that many times people in the Army EQUALLY hate that tyranny, and so are willing to sit on the sidelines while brave, moderate souls (Arabs in this case) risk their lives to bring about a better place. Not surprisingly, there, just as here, often the catalyst is economic strife, but it reflects a people tired of living poorly while an elite few, live off the labors of their countrymen.
Excellent post, TOE.
Thank you for commenting, Penigma!
Alas, I can't take credit for the post. OmnipotentWahrheit, who is one of our newest writers, wrote this excellent post, and I have reason to think he will be writing many more!
Well lets hope it turns out that way. I remember Iran in 1979, I was in college and had an Iranian roommate (the shah funded lots of students in the US). He pointed out that all the Iranian students on campus in the US were clean shaven while the students leading the revolt all had thick beards. He said they are the fundamentalist muslims and predicted that within a couple months there would be a religious government, the only thing he got wrong was it only took a couple of weeks. The muslim brotherhood has been outlawed in Egypt since it was found they were behind the killing of Anwar Sadat and they are trying to make a comeback. If they are helping to stir this up we could be looking at another Iran. Just to be clear I am not saying we should prop up Mubarak just that we might be looking at one of those situations where the group most likely to take power when he leaves is not at all friendly with us so while the people of Egypt might thank us for helping talk Mubarak into leaving(if we do) the government may want nothing to do with us anyway.
As far as Arab countries knowing about democracy it depends on their religious leanings. When Lebanon was a successful democracy they were a mostly Christian population with lots of western traditions left behind by the French. The various invasions over the past 30-40 yrs have caused a lot of the middle class to leave and be replaced by groups like Hezbollah. They were always there but were too small to make a difference, now they control a large part of the government.
Ttucker brings up interesting points about the potential problems of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Lebanon's democracy.
If Egypt's goal is to be a true democracy then the United States should not attempt to hinder these objectives due to fear of the Muslim Brotherhood taking power. In a true democracy all beliefs and opinions can be heard and all should be able to participate in the electoral and governing process, no matter how extreme or odd. This fear of the Muslim Brotherhood is reasonable but it can be mitigated by using the same system Lebanon uses.
Lebanon is a parliamentary democracy that is rather different. In Lebanon they have what is called confessionalism. This system is supposed to deter sectarian conflict and fairly represent the 18 recognized religious groups in the state. (United States Institute of Peace, "Lebanon's Confessionalism: Problems and Prospects," March, 2006).
In Lebanon high offices in government are legally reserved for members of specific religious groups. For example, the President has to be a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim and the Speaker of the Parliament a Shi’a Muslim. (United States Institute of Peace, "Lebanon's Confessionalism: Problems and Prospects," March, 2006).
If Egypt were to adopt such a system they could bring the Muslim Brotherhood into the political process while making sure they do not take over complete control of the state. These positions are created with checks and balances on each other like most parliamentary systems. Lebanon and The Federal Republic of Germany are good examples of the checks and balances system. Such a system might be a good choice in Afghanistan as well for practical reasons.
Post a Comment