Military

DATE=02/01/2003

TYPE=ON THE LINE

NUMBER=1-01272

TITLE=ARAB REFORM

INTERNET=Yes

EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY 619-0037

CONTENT=

THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE

Host: Can Democracy take root in the Arab World? Next, On the Line.

[music]

Host: A United Nations report found that there is less freedom in Arab countries than anywhere else. The report, written by a panel of Arab scholars and intellectuals, concluded that Arab countries will stagnate without democratization. Secretary of State Colin Powell and other U-S officials have joined the call for democracy in the region. President George W. Bush has promised that if the United States leads a coalition to disarm Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, a democratic Iraq will be a primary goal. What efforts are being made to promote democracy and freedom in the Arab world and can they succeed? I'll ask my guests: Ali Al-Ahmed, executive director of the Saudi Institute; Amy Hawthorne, an associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and Les Campbell, regional director of Middle East programs for the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. Welcome and thanks for joining us today.

Host: Ali Al-Ahmed, the U-N report called for "comprehensive political representation in effective legislatures based on free, honest, efficient, and regular elections." Is there any place in the Arab world where that has been achieved or where is it closest to being a reality?

Al-Ahmed: Not in any country in the Arab world that any participation in free elections has taken place. There are steps, but unfortunately all of them are insincere steps, in my opinion, because the governments in the Arab world feel that they control and that they run and in some cases, own the country and its people. It will be [this way] for a while. I think now with the United States plan to remove Saddam and liberate Iraq, Iraq can be probably the first model of full democracy where a one man, one voter system can be established.

Host: Amy Hawthorne, Ali Al-Ahmed says that what efforts there are toward reform have been insincere. Do you agree? Where have there been efforts made?

Hawthorne: I think in many countries in the region, starting in the mid- to late 1980s and continuing in the 1990s, there were partially free, mostly controlled, multi-party elections held. But these have not been completely free. They've been minimally competitive and often they haven't been regular. We see that in Jordan, which has held a couple of elections but has postponed an election that they've been waiting to hold for many years.

Host: By regular you mean not held on a regular schedule? [crosstalk]

Hawthorne: It's not institutionalized, right. It's still often in many cases held according to the whim of the ruling family or the ruler of the country. It's not an institutionalized practice yet in any Arab country.

Host: Well, Les Campbell, are there bright spots?

Campbell: Yes, I think there are. I think I'd be a little, slightly more optimistic and maybe a little more complimentary of some things. Just as an example, Morocco held in November of 2002 what many people believe to be the best election that has been held thus far in the Arab world. There were some irregularities, but it was an election where there was voter education, people knew what was at stake. The interior ministry made it its business to run the election well and fairly and in fact they got credit from most Moroccans for having done that. And the outcome was a parliament which I think the majority of Moroccans feel is legitimate. I should mention too that thirty-five women were elected in Morocco, a first in the Arab world, partly to do with a quota system which gave them a bit of a leg up, but it was still a remarkable achievement. The downside, though, even in Morocco, which is one of the bright spots, the big decisions, the important decisions are still made by a monarch, you know, a person who is not subject to the democratic system. So even in Morocco where they have made, I think, important steps, the ultimate step, which I guess you would call sovereignty of the people, they haven't even approached that.

Host: Ali Al-Ahmed, is this the kind of progress though if you establish elections even though it isn't right from the get go leading to a sovereignty of the people, does it ultimately lead to that?

Al-Ahmed: I think Les had a very important point and I agree with it completely. I call what Dr. [Ali] Alyami, [U-S-based political science professor] for example, said in the conference we [the Saudi Institute] held on Saudi reforms in London, he said we have to start changing the ownership. Here there is land and its people. Who owns the decision? It is the people or a group or a family. Here we have not reached that point yet. We need to return the decision to the people. People are the ones who decide who leads them and who run the four-year institution that manages the country's affairs. In Morocco, there's a bright spot, I agree. It is the bright spot but yet it falls way short of anything we could call democracy because again, one person can cancel the desire of the whole elected parliament.

Host: Well, Ali, Crown Prince Abdullah in Saudi Arabia has called for what he calls an Arab Charter to promote greater political participation. How serious is that effort?

Al-Ahmed: I think that's an embarrassing effort because here is a person who is ill and trying to heal others. You cannot give something which you do not have. Saudi Arabia in political terms is the most undemocratic, is the most absolutely ruled in the Arab world, yet it's talking, trying to tell other people, "Oh, why don't you be democratic." Saudi Arabia is run by five people, basically, five people who are uneducated and the population is very young. These five people did not even finish sixth-grade education. So, the problem here is these calls, they are just calls and they are words. There is no action behind them.

Host: Amy Hawthorne, is Crown Prince Abdullah going to have any role in promoting reform in the Arab world?

Hawthorne: Well, I think it's important to look closely at the text that was issued, this call for a unified Arab charter, because it reveals something interesting about a public discussion that's going on in the Arab world right now. The text did call for political participation in Arab societies, but that was only one portion of the proposed charter. It mostly dealt with the need to create a unified Arab front in the face of external aggression, a solution to the Palestinian problem, and it focused a lot on economic issues. So I wouldn't really characterize this as a call for political participation.

Host: Is the word democracy in it?

Hawthorne: No. The word democracy was not in the text. I think what's interesting about this is I think it shows the results of two things. I think that many leaders and officials in the Arab world are feeling very defensive these days in terms of the lack of democracy in the region. Since September 11th, there has been an increasing discourse, coming from the United States in particular, among intellectuals in the U-S and among some government officials criticizing the Arab world for its lack of democracy and saying this was a feature of what brought about ultimately the attack on September 11th. And that combined with the discourse about democracy in Iraq and the U-S intending to impose democracy on Iraq, I think has put many people, many leaders and officials in this region on the defensive. And I see this charter as a very interesting way to seize back the initiative and to say, "We will decide our own internal destiny. This will not be forced upon us by the United States. Yes, we have some problems. We're going to work to make these changes, but this will be an Arab effort and not something that's imposed by the U-S." But at this point I see it mainly in the realm of rhetoric and not action. We've seen many such charters and declarations in the past on the number of issues that have not been implemented. And in fact, at the end of this proposed charter, the text said something along the lines of it's time for us to put actions to words and not make declarations that we can't follow through on. So it remains to be seen what this really means in practice.

Host: Les Campbell, if this is a defensive gesture, how much does that actually move toward opening up?

Campbell: I'm not sure that the charter or the proposal of Crown Prince Abdullah will do much. I mean, I agree with Amy that there is a lot of rhetoric, but I guess I would say that there is a flip-side of the coin to this defensiveness that's found in the Arab world right now. I agree that there is a lot of defensiveness. But the flip-side is that after September 11th, many people within the Arab world that we're talking about today, while they maintain a lot of anger about U-S foreign policy and their perceptions of U-S hypocrisy in the region -- and I think to be fair to their population we have to give them some credit for that, that there has been, there really has been, I think, a certain imbalance in the way that the U-S has dealt, for example, with Israel vis-à-vis Arab countries. Sometimes there is a bit of an imbalance there. And there's also, I think, a legitimate argument to be made that the U-S has not pushed democracy in the Arab world as strong as it may have, say, in Central and Eastern Europe or the Balkans. So I think there is a legitimate grievance against U-S foreign policy. But post-September 11th, many people in Arab countries have done what I call "double tracking." They say, well, yes, we have some anger at the U-S, but we have even more anger at our own governments. And we're not going to allow our anger at the U-S or even our anger about the Palestinian question to stop us from asking for reform of our own governments. And so, to stick a little bit to the Gulf region, to Saudi Arabia's neighbors, in Bahrain, for example, even in Kuwait, to a lesser extent in Qatar, you have a lot of demand on the streets, people are saying, "We're sick and tired of being ruled by one person, one family. We want freedom. We want reform. We want economic and democratic rights. And we're not going to allow our rulers to use anger at the U-S to sort of derail that or hide that."

Al-Ahmed: The Saudis have been doing this for a long time. You know they externalize their problem. If you are angry at the government and you want to do something, they say you are "Westernizing". "He's Westernizing". They actually, the governments in the Middle East, especially in Saudi Arabia, they pack the people with anti-Western rhetoric, through mosques, through books, through the educational system, through their media to insulate them from accepting or imitating or seeking to have a Western-style system of government.

Host: Amy Hawthorne, is there any way for advocates for democracy within the Middle East to avoid this issue of being accused of merely trying to Westernize? Is there a way of pursuing democracy that is within the culture and thus more easily embraceable?

Hawthorne: Well, I personally feel optimistic that in the long-run in the Arab world, there can be established indigenous forms of democratic systems that draw broadly on the principles that most of us would agree, the universal principles that constitute democracy. I feel optimistic that that can happen over the long run. I think it is an indigenous process though. And what you see happening right now is something very complicated where there's a huge amount of anger in the Middle East, the Arab world, toward the United States. You have United States officials for the first time openly criticizing some of their close Arab friends for their internal governance practices. And so, you do see a defensiveness against this -- what is perceived to be an external criticism and an attack. And what that does is it creates a debate about democracy and democratization that is really about the Arab world's relation with the West and with the United States and not, primarily, about Arab governments' relationship with their own citizens. And so I think that this is an interesting development, but I think ultimately the focus has to be internal in Arab countries. The United States can help and it can do things that are constructive, but as long as the discourse stays focused on how Arabs can preempt U-S calls for reform to withstand these pressures, I don't think it's going to be very healthy.

Host: Les Campbell, you brought up a little earlier the issue of whether the U-S had been hypocritical in not pushing strongly enough for democracy over the last couple of decades in the Middle East. Amy Hawthorne brings up this other issue of when the U-S then does speak up for democracy in the Middle East, that it can be perceived as interference in a country's own development. How does the U-S deal with those contradictions and try to find a way to promote democracy that avoids either hypocrisy on the one side or interference on the other?

Campbell: Well, it's a difficult line to follow, but I think it can be done. One of the ways is to look for indigenous actors. In other words, partners the U-S can find either directly or preferably through intermediaries. It's possible to work through, for example, U-S-based N-G-Os or even regional non-governmental organizations that are not tied directly to U-S policy. And to have those organizations find partners. So, in other words, they can go to a country like Yemen or Bahrain or Egypt or Lebanon and find local partners, people who are like-minded who are also trying to push for democratic opening and reform. And they can help the local people in organizations work on that agenda. In countries where it's not possible to work internally or locally -- and there are some: Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia would come to mind -- it's possible to find partnerships with people who are exiled, people outside the country who are genuine democratic reformers. So I think the U-S democracy promotion efforts need not be impositions. They can be designed to support internal indigenous movements that are genuine -- they are supported by people or to support people -- who are exiles, but whose views represent a lot of people within the country.

Host: Ali Al-Ahmed, can that work with regard to Saudi Arabia?

Al-Ahmed: I think America has been intervening, to use your term, in the situation underground in the Middle East when it comes to military, when it comes to political issues, in favor of its policies or interests and also sometimes, many times, supporting the regimes that are in the Middle East that are friendly to it. So there is only what you're going to do -- is it changing them through this intervention, or assisting? Instead of being only friends with the tyrant and the rulers who are undemocratic, you can also be now friends with those who are trying to reform, those who want to be democratic, who want the people to have the say, or the first say in the affairs of their nations. I think if you look at the Pew research that they did when it comes to the world opinion of America, the Russians were the most pro-American because, why? Because it was America who pushed for the end of the Communist tyranny in the former Soviet Union. The same thing, if you help liberate people in Saudi Arabia or in Iraq, people in those lands will favor you because you help. Anybody, anywhere, with any religion, any race, if you help them remove tyranny and oppression, they will like you. If you bring them from darkness to light, from oppression to freedom, they will like you. And I think that America will be received well if it helps modernize and make freedom in the Middle East.

Host: Amy Hawthorne?

Hawthorne: Well, I agree with many things that you've said, but I think unfortunately the reality is a little bit more complicated, in the sense that were there to be genuine political openings in Arab countries and not window-dressing, not small incremental steps but genuine openings, at this point in time, those who would stand most to benefit would probably be local actors who have as a large part of their platform very intense criticism of U-S policies in the Middle East. That's what we would expect. So the real test of the U-S position is whether the U-S will continue to support democratization when those who will benefit, at least initially, will be very critical of U-S policies to the Middle East. [crosstalk]

Al-Ahmed: But we are hoping for the second round or third round of elections. [crosstalk]

Hawthorne: Right.

Al-Ahmed: You know, you can't learn to swim before you get into the water. And you know, we have to start somewhere and we can't wait until we have favorable people to the United States. [crosstalk] That's the price of democracy.

Hawthorne: Right. No. No. All I'm saying is the test for the United States government will be whether it can continue to advance these principles and goals that it espouses when those who benefit are going to be critical of U-S policies and when those developments may cause instability in he region. The U-S -- that will be a very difficult course for the United States government to chart. And whether or not it does that skillfully will really be the true test.

Host: Well, Les Campbell, has the recent experience in Turkey where an Islamic party is finally a chief democratic electoral success there, is that something that might lead the way in some way?

Campbell: It may, although Turkey really doesn't have a whole lot of influence over the Arab world. In the sense that the model there, I think most Arabs find foreign. And in fact the Islamist party in Turkey, compared to Islamist parties in Arab countries -- parties which might actually be close to gaining power in elections -- the party in Turkey compared to them would be moderate in the extreme, if that makes any sense. I mean, that's an Islamist party in name only. I think Amy is right in the sense that U-S decision makers will have to have a strong stomach in the first years of democracy in the Arab world. And I think Ali is right in the sense that in places like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the liberator who gives freedom may be embraced. I think in some ways, the thornier questions, even though they're not quite as dramatic, but the thornier questions are places like the Palestinian areas, the West Bank and Gaza, for example, or Egypt or Jordan even, where the U-S will not be perceived as a liberator, but the U-S role is often perceived to be negative. And will a U-S push for democracy in those countries be embraced by the broad population or will they perceive U-S involvement again as hypocritical? So I would argue that the right noises are being made about Arab reform right now, right from the U-N to the U-S to other countries. And it's very positive and it will have a positive impact, but decision-makers will have to take the long view. We're not going to see a revolution of democracy in five years.

Al-Ahmed: That's exactly the thing. Pegging [holding] democracy to U-S interest is not consistent with Jeffersonian democracy.

Host: Amy Hawthorne, we only have about a minute left and we've talked a lot about elections and the political aspects of democracy. What's the state of freedom of women -- this was one of the things addressed by the U-N report -- and how does that relate to the development of rule of law?

Hawthorne: Well, I think that the state of women in the Arab world varies tremendously from country to country. You have a country like Egypt or Lebanon in some respects, or Les mentioned Morocco, where women have made tremendous gains in the public life and in educational levels and in some senses in political participation over the last several decades. And then you have a country like Saudi Arabia, which is extremely conservative. So there's a lot of diversity. Women have not made as much progress in the Arab world in the last decade as one would have hoped, and it remains to be seen whether there will be a breakthrough in this area.

Host: We've got about thirty seconds left. Ali Al-Ahmed, what's the status of women's rights in Saudi Arabia at this point?

Al-Ahmed: Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world where women cannot drive. They are treated as children legally. Saudi Arabia has, the majority of Saudis are women and they have targeted them for abuse and suppression. By no means are any, compared to other countries, even in Afghanistan today we have women driving and women in the ministries.

Host: I'm afraid that's going to have to be the last word because we're out of time. I'd like to thank my guests: Ali Al-Ahmed of the Saudi Institute, Amy Hawthorne of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Les Campbell of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. Before we go, I'd like to invite our audience to send us your questions or comments. You can e-mail them to Ontheline@ibb.gov. For On the Line, I'm Eric Felten.