Can Arabs Do Democracy?

[Sally]

It will be interesting to see how the election turns out and if a true democracy can be achieved there.

Can Arabs Do Democracy?
By Bloomberg on 02:26 pm Oct 24, 2014


Young women calling for a stop to violence against women, chant slogans and hold pictures of assassinated secular politician Chokri Belaid, as they demonstrate in Tunis against the government, in this March 9, 2013, file photo. (Reuters Photo/Anis Mili)

Want to see the first successful Arab democracy in action? Tune in Sunday, when tiny Tunisia will hold its first legislative elections since the ratification of its liberal-democratic constitution in January. Tunisia is where the Arab Spring began in 2011, and it’s just about the only place where that movement for freedom and democracy hasn’t failed. The complex politics of these elections will tell us a lot about whether Tunisia is going to mature into a functioning democracy — or revert to dictatorship like Egypt.

The protagonists in the legislative election are really just two, and they’re both highly interesting. The first isEnnahda (it means the Renaissance), a party that advocates both Islamic values and egalitarian democracy. Ennahda’s origins lie in the international Muslim Brotherhood. Under the leadership of Rashid Ghannouchi, the party has established itself as the most politically moderate Islamic political actor anywhere in the Arabic speaking world.

Continue reading at:

Can Arabs Do Democracy - The Jakarta Globe?

 

[Rikurzhen]

No.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

No.

 

[Sunni Man]

Why should they? ......

 

[Phoenall]

Why should they? ......

To be accepted as civilised in todays world.

 

[Hollie]

For 13 centuries, with only brief periods of anything different, Moslems been ruled by despots and social misfits. They have no conception of rule of law, have no aversion to unconstitutional changes of government, and believe to the core of their being in their Isalmic creed which means "submission". Not only will they gladly submit to a theocratic state, but they’ll positively rush out and make it happen.

 

[Hollie]

Why should they? ......

That might give them some of the advantages you enjoy as a goofy convert exploiting the advantages of your western lifestyle. ......

 

[Coyote]

You don't have to have a democracy to be "civilized"...but you do need certain fundamental institutions in place to have a successful democracy. I don't think much of the Arab world has those yet.

Everyone was dancing around when people voted - as if the ability to vote was all that was needed and then it's done. Some one said that the true test of a democracy is not the vote but the peaceful transition of power after the vote.

The Economist has a good article on it: DEMOCRACY The Economist

The first great setback was in Russia. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 the democratisation of the old Soviet Union seemed inevitable. In the 1990s Russia took a few drunken steps in that direction under Boris Yeltsin. But at the end of 1999 he resigned and handed power to Vladimir Putin, a former KGB operative who has since been both prime minister and president twice. This postmodern tsar has destroyed the substance of democracy in Russia, muzzling the press and imprisoning his opponents, while preserving the show—everyone can vote, so long as Mr Putin wins. Autocratic leaders in Venezuela, Ukraine, Argentina and elsewhere have followed suit, perpetuating a perverted simulacrum of democracy rather than doing away with it altogether, and thus discrediting it further.

The next big setback was the Iraq war. When Saddam Hussein’s fabled weapons of mass destruction failed to materialise after the American-led invasion of 2003, Mr Bush switched instead to justifying the war as a fight for freedom and democracy. “The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies’ defeat,” he argued in his second inaugural address. This was more than mere opportunism: Mr Bush sincerely believed that the Middle East would remain a breeding ground for terrorism so long as it was dominated by dictators. But it did the democratic cause great harm. Left-wingers regarded it as proof that democracy was just a figleaf for American imperialism. Foreign-policy realists took Iraq’s growing chaos as proof that American-led promotion of democratisation was a recipe for instability. And disillusioned neoconservatives such as Francis Fukuyama, an American political scientist, saw it as proof that democracy cannot put down roots in stony ground.

A third serious setback was Egypt. The collapse of Hosni Mubarak’s regime in 2011, amid giant protests, raised hopes that democracy would spread in the Middle East. But the euphoria soon turned to despair. Egypt’s ensuing elections were won not by liberal activists (who were hopelessly divided into a myriad of Pythonesque parties) but by Muhammad Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood. Mr Morsi treated democracy as a winner-takes-all system, packing the state with Brothers, granting himself almost unlimited powers and creating an upper house with a permanent Islamic majority. In July 2013 the army stepped in, arresting Egypt’s first democratically elected president, imprisoning leading members of the Brotherhood and killing hundreds of demonstrators. Along with war in Syria and anarchy in Libya, this has dashed the hope that the Arab spring would lead to a flowering of democracy across the Middle East.

Meanwhile some recent recruits to the democratic camp have lost their lustre. Since the introduction of democracy in 1994 South Africa has been ruled by the same party, the African National Congress, which has become progressively more self-serving. Turkey, which once seemed to combine moderate Islam with prosperity and democracy, is descending into corruption and autocracy. In Bangladesh, Thailand and Cambodia, opposition parties have boycotted recent elections or refused to accept their results.

All this has demonstrated that building the institutions needed to sustain democracy is very slow work indeed, and has dispelled the once-popular notion that democracy will blossom rapidly and spontaneously once the seed is planted. Although democracy may be a “universal aspiration”, as Mr Bush and Tony Blair insisted, it is a culturally rooted practice. Western countries almost all extended the right to vote long after the establishment of sophisticated political systems, with powerful civil services and entrenched constitutional rights, in societies that cherished the notions of individual rights and independent judiciaries.

 

[Kondor3]

Can Arabs do Democracy?

Doubtful.

Based on past performance, anyway.

They are slaves to their religion, and, by way of extension, to their religious clerics.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Too many in the west seem to be under the impression that democracy will liberalize , and in doing so, they inverse the true relationship between cause and effect. Democracy is the product of a liberal people rather than a liberal people being the product of democracy.

The elephant in the room when it comes to discussing Arabs and democracy is their primitive social structure, which has changed little in centuries. Patriarchs arrange marriages between close family members in order to establish power and control, and the degree of inbreeding in Arab society overwhelms any thoughts of a true democracy. Setting aside for the moment, the devastating effects upon intelligence and emotoional stability due to the inbreeding, itself, how can you create any sort of functioning democracy from a people whose loyalty is to blood kin rather than ideals?

That is the real issue, and one too many people are loathe to discuss.

 

[Coyote]

Too many in the west seem to be under the impression that democracy will liberalize , and in doing so, they inverse the true relationship between cause and effect. Democracy is the product of a liberal people rather than a liberal people being the product of democracy.

The elephant in the room when it comes to discussing Arabs and democracy is their primitive social structure, which has changed little in centuries.

I agree but I don't think it's "cause and effect" exactly. Democracy needs certain "liberal" institutions and values to be viable and not degenerate into a he-who-collects-the-most-power takes all. It can't be imposed from the outside and it varies according to the culture. There is no one-size fits all democratic solution. However, democracy in itself can be liberalizing.

When you have countries who's culture is still predominantly tribal with primary loyalties to clans, tribes, ethnic groups and have been forced together by foreign intervention there is a lot to overcome and none of the ideas needed to sustain a democracy exist. You end up with something like a "tyranny of the majority" and strongman leaders. You can't have a functioning democracy without an independent judiciary to balance government or imo, a free press, the ideal that all men are created equal and a process to handle corruption and expose excess.

This doesn't exist or isn't valued in many supposedly "democratic" countries not just the ME, but Africa, Asia, Russia, Latin America. It's not a matter of "inbreeding" - it's the culture behind the government.

India is an interesting anomally. India has largely succeeded - not because it's culture isn't tribal or ethnically loyal, but because the British implanted many of the necessary institutions into it's government before they left and (eventually) incorporated Indian natives into the civil service. I think this legacy, along establishing a disciplined army that was not loyal to any one faction or warlord but to the central government went a long ways towards insuring India's successful transition to a functioning democracy.

I guess the real question is - can a democracy function without western ideals and...is it always the best form of government for every situation?

On the first - I don't see how a democracy can function without protecting the rights of it's minority populations - whether ethnic, religious or racial. I don't see how it can function without an independent judiciary. I don't see how it can function without a means to combat corruption. And I don't see how it can function without the validation of fundamental human rights and equality. I don't see how you can have a functional democracy without a high rate of education. And you need a functional Constitution before you have a popular vote.

I don't think democracy is necessarily the right solution for everyone and trying to impose it is one of the worst mistakes. It has to develop from within and it takes time - a lot of time to work through it's issues. I don't know how it will work out in the Arab world.

 

[irosie91]

Too many in the west seem to be under the impression that democracy will liberalize , and in doing so, they inverse the true relationship between cause and effect. Democracy is the product of a liberal people rather than a liberal people being the product of democracy.

The elephant in the room when it comes to discussing Arabs and democracy is their primitive social structure, which has changed little in centuries.

I agree but I don't think it's "cause and effect" exactly. Democracy needs certain "liberal" institutions and values to be viable and not degenerate into a he-who-collects-the-most-power takes all. It can't be imposed from the outside and it varies according to the culture. There is no one-size fits all democratic solution. However, democracy in itself can be liberalizing.

When you have countries who's culture is still predominantly tribal with primary loyalties to clans, tribes, ethnic groups and have been forced together by foreign intervention there is a lot to overcome and none of the ideas needed to sustain a democracy exist. You end up with something like a "tyranny of the majority" and strongman leaders. You can't have a functioning democracy without an independent judiciary to balance government or imo, a free press, the ideal that all men are created equal and a process to handle corruption and expose excess.

This doesn't exist or isn't valued in many supposedly "democratic" countries not just the ME, but Africa, Asia, Russia, Latin America. It's not a matter of "inbreeding" - it's the culture behind the government.

India is an interesting anomally. India has largely succeeded - not because it's culture isn't tribal or ethnically loyal, but because the British implanted many of the necessary institutions into it's government before they left and (eventually) incorporated Indian natives into the civil service. I think this legacy, along establishing a disciplined army that was not loyal to any one faction or warlord but to the central government went a long ways towards insuring India's successful transition to a functioning democracy.

I guess the real question is - can a democracy function without western ideals and...is it always the best form of government for every situation?

On the first - I don't see how a democracy can function without protecting the rights of it's minority populations - whether ethnic, religious or racial. I don't see how it can function without an independent judiciary. I don't see how it can function without a means to combat corruption. And I don't see how it can function without the validation of fundamental human rights and equality. I don't see how you can have a functional democracy without a high rate of education. And you need a functional Constitution before you have a popular vote.

I don't think democracy is necessarily the right solution for everyone and trying to impose it is one of the worst mistakes. It has to develop from within and it takes time - a lot of time to work through it's issues. I don't know how it will work out in the Arab world.

I am fascinated with the discussion of INDIA and DEMOCRACY--------long ago when I encountered large numbers of educated people from the indian subcontinent-----the very place that had had the "ADVANTAGE" of British
rule-------I noticed ----a very MARKEDLY different interpretation of that 'advantage'------from the lucky
recipients of british rule. Keep in mind---the UK included what is now both India, Pakistan and Bangla desh.
Muslims (from both india and Pakistan -----bangla desh was till a twinkle in the eye of ----what-his-name "mujibre")
told me "the british and the Zionist controlled CIA ---
caused all our problems" ---------and somehow the hindus
were delighted to compare themselves with those elegant
BRITS -----------I was kinda nauseated at both sides of
THAT COIN. HOWEVER ---I have no doubt that Coyote can explain to us why the HINDUS benefited from the brits and the MAGNA CARTA------but somehow-----the Pakistanis were left injured

 

[Coyote]

Too many in the west seem to be under the impression that democracy will liberalize , and in doing so, they inverse the true relationship between cause and effect. Democracy is the product of a liberal people rather than a liberal people being the product of democracy.

The elephant in the room when it comes to discussing Arabs and democracy is their primitive social structure, which has changed little in centuries.

I agree but I don't think it's "cause and effect" exactly. Democracy needs certain "liberal" institutions and values to be viable and not degenerate into a he-who-collects-the-most-power takes all. It can't be imposed from the outside and it varies according to the culture. There is no one-size fits all democratic solution. However, democracy in itself can be liberalizing.

When you have countries who's culture is still predominantly tribal with primary loyalties to clans, tribes, ethnic groups and have been forced together by foreign intervention there is a lot to overcome and none of the ideas needed to sustain a democracy exist. You end up with something like a "tyranny of the majority" and strongman leaders. You can't have a functioning democracy without an independent judiciary to balance government or imo, a free press, the ideal that all men are created equal and a process to handle corruption and expose excess.

This doesn't exist or isn't valued in many supposedly "democratic" countries not just the ME, but Africa, Asia, Russia, Latin America. It's not a matter of "inbreeding" - it's the culture behind the government.

India is an interesting anomally. India has largely succeeded - not because it's culture isn't tribal or ethnically loyal, but because the British implanted many of the necessary institutions into it's government before they left and (eventually) incorporated Indian natives into the civil service. I think this legacy, along establishing a disciplined army that was not loyal to any one faction or warlord but to the central government went a long ways towards insuring India's successful transition to a functioning democracy.

I guess the real question is - can a democracy function without western ideals and...is it always the best form of government for every situation?

On the first - I don't see how a democracy can function without protecting the rights of it's minority populations - whether ethnic, religious or racial. I don't see how it can function without an independent judiciary. I don't see how it can function without a means to combat corruption. And I don't see how it can function without the validation of fundamental human rights and equality. I don't see how you can have a functional democracy without a high rate of education. And you need a functional Constitution before you have a popular vote.

I don't think democracy is necessarily the right solution for everyone and trying to impose it is one of the worst mistakes. It has to develop from within and it takes time - a lot of time to work through it's issues. I don't know how it will work out in the Arab world.

I am fascinated with the discussion of INDIA and DEMOCRACY--------long ago when I encountered large numbers of educated people from the indian subcontinent-----the very place that had had the "ADVANTAGE" of British
rule-------I noticed ----a very MARKEDLY different interpretation of that 'advantage'------from the lucky
recipients of british rule. Keep in mind---the UK included what is now both India, Pakistan and Bangla desh.
Muslims (from both india and Pakistan -----bangla desh was till a twinkle in the eye of ----what-his-name "mujibre")
told me "the british and the Zionist controlled CIA ---
caused all our problems" ---------and somehow the hindus
were delighted to compare themselves with those elegant
BRITS -----------I was kinda nauseated at both sides of
THAT COIN. HOWEVER ---I have no doubt that Coyote can explain to us why the HINDUS benefited from the brits and the MAGNA CARTA------but somehow-----the Pakistanis were left injured

There is a mixture of reasons and, without going and researching it what I seem to remember is that the British Raj practiced a good bit of the "divide and conquor" strategy in who it chose and how it set up it's military and government positions and which ethnic groups were included. Upper class Hindus were represented in the civil service, there were very few Muslims.. I think the eastern region that became Pakistan was left largely undeveloped by the British. Also, the culture of that region is very different from the west and south - very tribal.

 

[SAYIT]

Too many in the west seem to be under the impression that democracy will liberalize , and in doing so, they inverse the true relationship between cause and effect. Democracy is the product of a liberal people rather than a liberal people being the product of democracy.

The elephant in the room when it comes to discussing Arabs and democracy is their primitive social structure, which has changed little in centuries.

I agree but I don't think it's "cause and effect" exactly. Democracy needs certain "liberal" institutions and values to be viable and not degenerate into a he-who-collects-the-most-power takes all. It can't be imposed from the outside and it varies according to the culture. There is no one-size fits all democratic solution. However, democracy in itself can be liberalizing.

When you have countries who's culture is still predominantly tribal with primary loyalties to clans, tribes, ethnic groups and have been forced together by foreign intervention there is a lot to overcome and none of the ideas needed to sustain a democracy exist. You end up with something like a "tyranny of the majority" and strongman leaders. You can't have a functioning democracy without an independent judiciary to balance government or imo, a free press, the ideal that all men are created equal and a process to handle corruption and expose excess.

This doesn't exist or isn't valued in many supposedly "democratic" countries not just the ME, but Africa, Asia, Russia, Latin America. It's not a matter of "inbreeding" - it's the culture behind the government.

India is an interesting anomally. India has largely succeeded - not because it's culture isn't tribal or ethnically loyal, but because the British implanted many of the necessary institutions into it's government before they left and (eventually) incorporated Indian natives into the civil service. I think this legacy, along establishing a disciplined army that was not loyal to any one faction or warlord but to the central government went a long ways towards insuring India's successful transition to a functioning democracy.

I guess the real question is - can a democracy function without western ideals and...is it always the best form of government for every situation?

On the first - I don't see how a democracy can function without protecting the rights of it's minority populations - whether ethnic, religious or racial. I don't see how it can function without an independent judiciary. I don't see how it can function without a means to combat corruption. And I don't see how it can function without the validation of fundamental human rights and equality. I don't see how you can have a functional democracy without a high rate of education. And you need a functional Constitution before you have a popular vote.

I don't think democracy is necessarily the right solution for everyone and trying to impose it is one of the worst mistakes. It has to develop from within and it takes time - a lot of time to work through it's issues. I don't know how it will work out in the Arab world.

Wow! Your tortured, convoluted tale of Western imposed woe is certainly verbose but explains far more about you than it does about the failure of democracy to take root in the Arab Mideast.
The institutions necessary to grow and sustain democracy are independent courts applying just laws, a checks-and-balances governing structure and a free and competitive press. No Arab Mideast state has any of them and seemingly has any interest in having them. You can lead a camel to water but you can't make them drink. The reason it worked in India is the people embraced Western-style democratic institutions. Those hapless Tunisian kids who celebrate their new found democracy are not likely to stand up for it the first time some tribal or religious cow takes it away. Without commitment to the ideals of democracy and a willingness to defend them in the Arab Mideast, it will sprout here and there then wither and die.

 

[Mojo2]

Why should they? ......

On that score you and Iranian born Muslim big brain and writer, Amir Taheri agree.

Amir Taheri: "Islam Is Incompatible With Democracy"

Amir Taheri Islam Is Incompatible With Democracy

 

[SAYIT]

Why should they? ......

On that score you and Iranian born Muslim big brain and writer, Amir Taheri agree.

Amir Taheri: "Islam Is Incompatible With Democracy"

Amir Taheri Islam Is Incompatible With Democracy

Years of UN sponsored but Arab authored What-the-hell-is-Wrong-with-Arabs reports all lamented the anti-modern, tribal nature of Arab/Muslim culture but could not fix the oppressive abomination because too many Sunni Boys will defend their birthright (misogyny) to the death.

 

[Coyote]

Too many in the west seem to be under the impression that democracy will liberalize , and in doing so, they inverse the true relationship between cause and effect. Democracy is the product of a liberal people rather than a liberal people being the product of democracy.

The elephant in the room when it comes to discussing Arabs and democracy is their primitive social structure, which has changed little in centuries.

I agree but I don't think it's "cause and effect" exactly. Democracy needs certain "liberal" institutions and values to be viable and not degenerate into a he-who-collects-the-most-power takes all. It can't be imposed from the outside and it varies according to the culture. There is no one-size fits all democratic solution. However, democracy in itself can be liberalizing.

When you have countries who's culture is still predominantly tribal with primary loyalties to clans, tribes, ethnic groups and have been forced together by foreign intervention there is a lot to overcome and none of the ideas needed to sustain a democracy exist. You end up with something like a "tyranny of the majority" and strongman leaders. You can't have a functioning democracy without an independent judiciary to balance government or imo, a free press, the ideal that all men are created equal and a process to handle corruption and expose excess.

This doesn't exist or isn't valued in many supposedly "democratic" countries not just the ME, but Africa, Asia, Russia, Latin America. It's not a matter of "inbreeding" - it's the culture behind the government.

India is an interesting anomally. India has largely succeeded - not because it's culture isn't tribal or ethnically loyal, but because the British implanted many of the necessary institutions into it's government before they left and (eventually) incorporated Indian natives into the civil service. I think this legacy, along establishing a disciplined army that was not loyal to any one faction or warlord but to the central government went a long ways towards insuring India's successful transition to a functioning democracy.

I guess the real question is - can a democracy function without western ideals and...is it always the best form of government for every situation?

On the first - I don't see how a democracy can function without protecting the rights of it's minority populations - whether ethnic, religious or racial. I don't see how it can function without an independent judiciary. I don't see how it can function without a means to combat corruption. And I don't see how it can function without the validation of fundamental human rights and equality. I don't see how you can have a functional democracy without a high rate of education. And you need a functional Constitution before you have a popular vote.

I don't think democracy is necessarily the right solution for everyone and trying to impose it is one of the worst mistakes. It has to develop from within and it takes time - a lot of time to work through it's issues. I don't know how it will work out in the Arab world.

Wow! Your tortured, convoluted tale of Western imposed woe is certainly verbose but explains far more about you than it does about the failure of democracy to take root in the Arab Mideast.
The institutions necessary to grow and sustain democracy are independent courts applying just laws, a checks-and-balances governing structure and a free and competitive press.

Isn't that what I said? Maybe you didn't read my post.

I didn't say much about "western imposed woe" - you seem to be inserting a lot of material. Democracy is dependent on western-style institutions and ideals. India is a great example of how it worked and Pakistan how it did not. You can't really seperate the legacy of colonialism from the issue - it's part of the puzzle because democracy, as we understand is a western idea.

No Arab Mideast state has any of them and seemingly has any interest in having them. You can lead a camel to water but you can't make them drink. The reason it worked in India is the people embraced Western-style democratic institutions.

Agreed. They don't have them. But no interest in having them? I would disagree. Egypt's initial "Arab Spring" showed there was indeed an interest in some degree of free speech, a reformed judiciary and a free press. It didn't last once the elected got into power and, in reality it was probably the educated and more urban Egyptians that pushed for it.

I'm not sure if India "embraced" those western institutions so much as they were long entrenched and familiar by the time the British left. They were shown to work fairly well in Indias multi-ethnic, multi-religious society.

It's a good question though - why has India's transition to democracy been so successful while others in Africa, the ME, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe fall prey to corruption and dictatorial rulers?

Those hapless Tunisian kids who celebrate their new found democracy are not likely to stand up for it the first time some tribal or religious cow takes it away. Without commitment to the ideals of democracy and a willingness to defend them in the Arab Mideast, it will sprout here and there then wither and die.

I agree, and it comes back to the vote and the prevailing idea that "democracy" simply means voting with no understanding of the framework that lies beneath that one act.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I don't see any redemption in any dangerous cult. This nation was founded on the principle of religious tolerance, not religious intansigence. If Muslims can't live with that, then get the fuck out.

 

[Sunni Man]

It's a good question though - why has India's transition to democracy been so successful while others in Africa, the ME, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe fall prey to corruption and dictatorial rulers?

The answer is quite simple.

India kicked the British out and then the Indian people formed their own democratic government.

While in the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa.

The U.S. installed puppet dictators to rule the people. And supplied the dictators with bribe money and weapons to keep the people in line.

While at the same time talking about how everyone needs democracy. ......

 

[Coyote]

I don't see any redemption in any dangerous cult. This nation was founded on the principle of religious tolerance, not religious intansigence. If Muslims can't live with that, then get the fuck out.

They do live with that and have as long as they've been in the US. I don't think it's our Muslims we have to worry about. Can we kick out some of those religiously intolerant Christians?