By Marius Deeb
“We seek the advance of democracy for the most practical of reasons: because democracies do not support terrorists or threaten the world with weapons of mass murder.” Speaking at the opening of an exhibition on Winston Churchill at the Library of Congress in February 2004, President George W. Bush made the case for his administration’s efforts to spread democracy to other nations, chief among them countries in the Middle East region.
If, as philosopher Immanuel Kant pointed out in his essay, “Perpetual Peace,” more than two centuries ago, democracies do not fight each other, then the spread of democratic values is in the interest of the West and of the United States in particular. The best antidote to the terrorism perpetrated by militant Islam—whether the Sunni genre of bin Laden’s al Qaeda or the Shi’i genre of Khomeini’s Islamic revolution—is liberal democracy, with its espousal of freedom and openness to the whole world. To protect America, the Bush administration is on the right track: calling for the spread of democracy in the Middle East, that is, fighting the momentous battle of ideas concomitantly with the global “war on terrorism.”
The Bush administration has somewhat consistently encouraged democracy in the Middle East. The cases of Iraq, Egypt and Lebanon show how the United States has been promoting democracy in a region characterized more often than not by conflicts, wars and acts of terrorism.
At this time, however, the prospects for democracy in the Middle East are largely discouraging: Iraq, engaged in a devastating sectarian civil war, has not been able yet to consolidate the democratic gains achieved since the fall of Saddam Hussein; Egypt has been ruled by leaders who fear democratic reforms and who have nipped in the bud any democratic alternative; and only Lebanon shows signs of a rebirth of democracy, but the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis is trying to subvert it.
Democracy From the Ruins of War?
When the weapons of mass destruction which Saddam Hussein had supposedly stacked—and which constituted the major reason for the U.S.-led war against Iraq in March 2003—were nowhere to be found, the Bush administration began to regard the establishment of democracy in Iraq as its first priority.
The push for democracy in Iraq began with the elections for the Transitional National Assembly in January 2005, with more than 8.5 million participating. Although the turnout was impressive, the Sunni Arabs boycotted the elections, which rendered them less representative.
This was followed by the parliamentary elections in December 2005, with the participation of a large number of political parties and organizations representing the various ethnic and religious communities of Iraq. Even the Sunni Arabs participated in those elections. Remarkably, the leading Sunni Arab candidates asked the Sunni insurgents to hold their fire for the duration of the elections and they obliged.
What mars the birth of democracy in Iraq is the ongoing war, especially with the establishment of a foothold by al Qaeda soon after the U.S.-led war against Iraq had commenced. “Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia,” as it calls itself, is primarily led by non-Iraqi Arabs and replenished by Arab jihadists coming across the Syrian-Iraqi border with the connivance of Syrian authorities.
As long as the conflict continues, consolidating the democratic gains achieved in the last three years will be difficult. One way to end the ongoing war is to reconcile the Sunni insurgents (mostly led by former military and intelligence officers of the ancien régime of Saddam Hussein) who are Iraqi nationalists with the present Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. At the same time, the new American policy of dealing with the local tribes in the various regions of Iraq to stem al Qaeda fighters is succeeding—for example, in the provinces of al-Anbar and Diyala. A leading tribal figure expressed succinctly how the tribes view al Qaeda: “The tribes hate religious parties and religious fakers.”
Egypt: Rulers Who Fear Democracy
Egypt was on the verge of a breakthrough in the rebirth of democracy, a process which began in October 2004 when 3,000 members of the New Wafd Party formed a new party called Hizb al-Ghad or the Party of Tomorrow led by Ayman Nour. Egypt has a long tradition in democracy. It was during the monarchy period of 1923–52 that Egypt witnessed six free parliamentary elections and enjoyed a free press and an independent judiciary.
The military revolution of July 1952 led by Gamal Abdel Nasser changed all that. In 1974, when Anwar Sadat reversed the foreign policy pursued by Nasser and made Egypt pro-Western, he continued to prevent the emergence of a democratic system in Egypt. After allowing the formation in January 1978 of the New Wafd Party (heir to the formidable liberal democratic Wafd Party under the monarchy), Sadat feared its sudden popularity—1 million members in a few months—so through various measures he forced it out of existence.
President Hosni Mubarak, who shares his predecessors’ aversion to democracy, tried to undermine the newly formed al-Ghad Party by incarcerating, on fabricated charges, its popular leader, Nour, in January 2005. When the Bush administration exerted pressure, the Egyptian authorities released Nour after six weeks’ imprisonment. The Bush administration also pressured the Egyptian government to allow multiple candidates in the presidential election.
Another secular organization was concomitantly formed with al-Ghad Party. The Egyptian Movement for Change, better known by its catchword, Kifaya (Enough!), organized demonstrations in early 2005 in the major cities of Egypt. Demonstrators chanted “A quarter of a century is enough” and “Mubarak, admit you’re a despot.”
The presidential elections of September 2005 in which Nour challenged Mubarak were neither free nor fair. Nour’s campaign was severely restricted in terms of access to the media and his ability to campaign freely throughout the country. The rigged elections, which gave Mubarak 88.5 percent and Nour 7.6 percent, did not reflect reality.
In December 2005, Nour was imprisoned again and sentenced to five years with hard labor. The way the leader of the al-Ghad party is treated shows that Mubarak’s greatest fear is a liberal democrat such as Nour who could replace the unpopular autocratic regime in Egypt.
In the November 2005 elections, suddenly the Muslim Brothers, a Sunni Islamist movement, increased their representation in parliament from 17 to 88 members. Mubarak’s strategy is to use the Muslim Brothers as the “bogeyman.” The Muslim Brothers, contrary to the prevalent view, are not banned in Egypt. They are allowed to hold rallies, to demonstrate, to distribute their publications, to use the mosques to spread their ideas and to run their own candidates in various legislative and organizational elections. The Muslim Brothers lack only one thing: official recognition.
Mubarak’s message to the West—and in particular the United States—is simple: It’s either the Mubarak regime (father and later son) or the abyss.
Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution: Rebirth of Democracy
The greatest success in promoting democracy in the Middle East has been in Lebanon. Until the U.S.-led war against Iraq, Syria had been viewed favorably by the Bush administration. The negative role played by Syria in Iraq led to the signing by Bush in December 2003 of the Syria Accountability and the Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. Another watershed was U.N. Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1559, passed September 2, 2004, and sponsored by the United States and France, which called for free presidential elections, the withdrawal of foreign (Syrian) troops from Lebanon and the disarming of all militias (Hezbollah).
Although Syria coerced the Lebanese parliamentarians to amend the Lebanese constitution and to extend the term of incumbent President Emile Lahhoud for three years, UNSC Resolution 1559 had empowered the Lebanese opposition to Syria. Fearing Lebanese opposition could win the parliamentary elections scheduled for May 2005, Syrian President Bashar Asad (following in the footsteps of his father, President Hafez Asad) resorted to terrorism and on February 14, 2005, former prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri and 22 others were killed in a massive suicide car bomb.
Asad thought this would end the Lebanese opposition, but instead it unleashed an unprecedented revolution, the Cedar Revolution, which culminated in the March 14, 2005, peaceful rally in Beirut of 1.5 million people who called for withdrawal of Syrian troops, free democratic polity and knowing the truth about al-Hariri’s assassination.
Coming under pressure from the United States and the UNSC, Syria withdrew its troops and intelligence officers from Lebanon in April 2005. In the parliamentary elections conducted in May–June 2005, the Cedar Revolution coalition won the majority of seats. The new cabinet representing this majority was formed by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. The Bush administration fully supported this rebirth of democracy in Lebanon.
Faced with a U.N. investigation into al-Hariri’s assassination and the establishment of an international tribunal, Syria resorted to conflict and terrorism. The Syrian-Iranian proxy, Hezbollah, triggered a war in July 2006 with Israel hoping to undermine the Cedar Revolution, but it had the opposite effect.
UNSC Resolution 1701 of August 2006 called for the deployment of the Lebanese Army with an expanded U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) force along the Lebanese-Israeli border, thus preventing Hezbollah from fomenting conflict. The leaders of the Cedar Revolution have always called for a pacified border with Israel and the disarmament of Hezbollah. In May 2007, Fath al-Islam, a jihadist terrorist organization that was smuggled by Syria into northern Lebanon, waged a war against the Lebanese Army but was defeated by late August 2007.
Although President Emile Lahhoud left office when his term ended on November 23, no successor has been elected yet. Syria is trying to prevent the election of a new president by the Cedar Revolution majority in parliament. The Bush administration and the world community insist on a free presidential election in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1559.
The divide in Lebanon is clearly demarcated, with the vast majority of the population supporting the Cedar Revolution. Those who are opposed to it are a minority supported by the Syria-Iran-Hezbollah axis. Druze leader Walid Junblat, one of the most prominent figures of the Cedar Revolution, has depicted the ideas and ideals that divide the two sides: The other side is obscurantist and espouses endless wars, martyrdom and therefore death, while the Cedar Revolution side is for modernity, life and hope. The other side is totalitarian and intolerant of other views and therefore is for tyranny, while the Cedar Revolution side is for pluralism, for diversity of views and for a free and democratic polity open to the whole world.
Is the confrontation in Lebanon a battle for the soul of the Middle East?
Marius Deeb is a professorial lecturer of Middle East Studies. |
