INSIDE THE ARAB SPRING MIRAGE

Oil and Dynastic Rule Influence Arab Spring Outcomes

 

By Doug Gavel

 

 

The Arab Spring, which raised hopes for a wave of democratic reforms throughout the Middle East, has so far led to regime change in only four countries—Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. Why that dramatic series of almost synchronized uprisings reaped such modest dividends is the subject of a new paper, "Tracking the ‘Arab Spring’: Why the Modest Harvest?," published in the Journal of Democracy, co-authored by Harvard Kennedy School Associate Professor Tarek Masoud.

"The Arab Spring that resides in the popular imagination is one in which a wave of mass mobilization swept the broader Middle East, toppled dictators, and cleared the way for democracy. The reality is that few Arab countries have experienced anything of the sort," the authors write. "The Arab Spring’s modest harvest — a record far less inspiring than those of the East European revolutions of 1989 or sub-Saharan Africa’s political transitions in the early 1990s — cries out for explanation."

 Masoud and co-authors Jason Brownlee of the University of Texas, Austin and Andrew Reynolds of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, examined the political, social and economic conditions under which the various national protest movements were launched and sustained. Their analysis identified two primary factors – a nation’s oil exports and the nature of its ruling structure – that directly influenced the outcomes in each country.

According to the authors, oil wealth endows leaders with extra repressive capacity, and the means to buy off regime elements that might otherwise defect in the face of protest. And regimes that practice hereditary rule are ones that have forged “unusually strong ties between the ruler and the repressive apparatus.”

“Dynasticism and oil rents operate as complementary, rather than competing, variables,” they argue. “Either characteristic is enough to ensure that the regime will retain power, while a regime without either will fall quickly once popular pressure and military defections begin to mount.”

Masoud and his co-authors argue that there is little chance that similar change will occur anytime soon in the other Arab countries.

“Many think that it is only a matter of time before the doleful dynastic stability of Jordan, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia gives way to popular demands for dignity and freedom. This may be so,” they claim. “But our theory predicts that these regimes will not respond to such challenges by turning in on themselves, packing the autocrat off to exile, and negotiating the dismantling of the old order. Monarchies that have ruled for the better part of 250 years in Saudi Arabia, 400 in Morocco, or 100 in Jordan, and gathered into their hands all the threads of power and privilege, will not go quietly.”

Islam is a terrorist culture, not a religion.  Basil Venitis, venitis@gmail.com, http://themostsearched.blogspot.com, @Venitis

Three years have passed since the dawn of the Arab Spring, starting with the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. The situation in practically the whole of the Arab world remains highly fluid yet important differences have emerged among and between the countries and the regions. Many obstacles need to be overcome in order for these transitions to be successfully consolidated.

The Arab Spring is a mirage!  It consists of a mishmash of anti-government demonstrations triggered in most cases by police over-reaction and fuelled by economic hard times in Tunisia and Egypt, ethnic and religious tensions in Syria and Bahrain, tribal rivalries in Libya and Yemen, and by growing public perception that Planetarch Uncle Sam manipulates Middle East.

Outstanding security challenges remain, first and foremost the ongoing civil war in Syria with its evident risks of spill-over to neighbors, graphically illustrated by the hundreds of thousands of refugees who have flowed into neighboring countries such as Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. Of concern are the internal security threats that Libya continues to face, and instability among some of its neighbors, highlighted by the ongoing conflict in Mali, as well as the recent terrorist attack on a strategic Algerian gas facility.

At the same time the social cohesion of some Arab countries undergoing transition risks being undermined by new forms of internal political polarization, between secular and Islamist forces, but also between and among affected groups such as women, young people, religious and racial minorities, as well as by a deteriorating economic situation.

The Arab Spring has been hijacked by theocrats and Arabokleptocrats. On the economic front, greater openness to foreign investment could allow some countries to kick-start growth. Also, the imperative of reconstruction will push Iraq and Libya to accelerate oil production as fast as possible. Their contributions could help keep prices down if Iran’s standoff with the rest of the world intensifies.

EU support to stimulate sustainable economic growth is therefore crucial to the promotion of democratic institutions, provided that the countries of the region contribute to the promotion of a friendly environment for investment, jobs and growth. It should be underlined that economics has a deep connection with politics. An economic collapse would imply a political failure of the transitions. Therefore, EU support is more urgent than ever to help transitions move in the right direction.

These transitions will be difficult and will take time – measured in years instead of months – and setbacks may well occur. However, the long-term goal of a democratic and prosperous Southern Neighbourhood of EU is one that requires not only constant commitment from the EU as well as its southern partners to ensure that reform promises are kept, but also strategic patience and timely support measures.

Parties that have Islam as a central point of reference have, through elections, made important gains in the legislative assemblies and in terms of control of executive bodies in several of the transition countries. Respecting the democratic choice of the people, the European Union has engaged in an intense dialogue with the new governments and extended its support on the basis that our relationship will going forward need to take account not only of their official programs and policies but crucially of their emerging record while in government. EU engagement with all of our neighbors is firmly grounded on the basis of the incentive-based more for more principle and on mutual accountability.

 

Kleptocrats are wholehearted believers that the Arab Spring will bring the installation of secular democracy across that region. This has been and still is a nonsense that only adolescent idealists or deliberate liars could believe, and one that has been proven fatuous by the fact that Islamists have won every election held since the start of the Arab Spring.

Kleptocrats will not admit they are wrong on this issue and they will pump billions of dollars and euros in foreign aid into the Arab-Spring countries in a feckless, Muslim-alienating effort to build secular democracies and install kleptocracy. Such aid not only will be wasted, but it surely will cause more Muslims take up arms against the West. Indeed, the continuation of this war on Islam is likely to start the clash of cultures.

Theocrats and Arabokleptocrats now manipulate Arab hoi polloi. Greeks, Turks, and Britons have influenced the culture of Middle East for many centuries. Now there are many political transitions in the Middle East. Everybody recognizes this is a pivotal moment in the Middle East and North Africa.  The Arab Spring is an event comparable to the fall of the Ottoman Empire or the decolonization of the Middle East following the Second World War.

Historians will long be debating these momentous developments. The ability of Occident to shape the events in the Middle East is limited. The time has come for Arabs to start writing their own narratives. It might get ugly and end up being not the kind of narrative that Occidentals like. But it will still be their own narrative.

The future of the Middle East will be written by its own people, not by any foreign power. We should stand with those in the region who call for peaceful, democratic transitions, for tolerance and pluralism. Western policy approach should be both pragmatic and in keeping with Graecoroman principles, values, and interests.

This as a moment of great challenge and great opportunity, and the two are inexorably linked. Uprisings across the region have exposed a number of myths: The myth that governments can hold on to power without responding to their people's aspirations or respecting their rights; the myth that the only way to produce change in the region is through violence and conflict; and, most pernicious of all, the myth that Arabs do not share universal human aspirations for freedom, dignity, and opportunity.

The protests and upheaval we have witnessed in so many countries have the potential to bring about a region that is more democratic, more economically dynamic, and more responsive to the needs and aspirations of its citizens. The status quo in the Middle East is unsustainable, and genuine democratic changes in that region will make countries both more stable and, in the long run, likely to be more in sync with the interests of the West.

But there is also the danger that democratic transitions can be hijacked by undemocratic forces, giving rise to new autocracies. The West needs to shape its policies in the region to encourage peaceful democratic transitions and to help prevent the rise of such new autocracies.

Democratic transitions must be home grown. The challenge falls to the people and the leaders of the region to achieve the brighter future they desire – a future in which governments respond to the aspirations of their people and view it as their duty to protect human rights, fundamental freedoms and the dignity that all people desire and deserve. But the West has a keen interest in their success, and we can play a key supporting role.

We have done and will do this by acknowledging, supporting and empowering the democratic and reformist voices from the region. And we will continue to do this by speaking honestly about the need to respect human rights and shun violence. We continue to tell all governments, friendly or not, that the use of violence to suppress peaceful expression is wrong and destabilizing, both to the
governments that resort to violence and to the region as a whole.

Much has been said about the alleged conflict between our democratic values and our desire for stability in the Middle East. This is a false dichotomy. Occident has a profound interest in regional stability, and we believe that respect for universal human rights and the principle that governments are accountable to their people are in fact key components of long-term stability.

The Islamists did not play a role in Tunisia, Libya, and in Egypt. The course of events has taken the Muslim Brotherhood by surprise. The Islamists are now trying to organize as political parties within a pluralistic system. These freedom movements are not anti-Western. On the contrary, in Libya, the rebels called for more support from NATO. The Arab revolution has set aside the cliche of a cultural and religious uniqueness that supposedly makes Islam incompatible with democracy and supposedly destines Muslims to be ruled by at best enlightened despots.

The condition for any modernization is demographic modernization. It goes hand-in-hand with a decline in experienced and practiced religiosity. We are already experiencing a de-Islamization of Arab societies, a demystification of the world, and it will inevitably continue, just as a dechristianization occurred in Europe. Of course, one can placate the people with bread and money, but only for a while. Revolutions usually erupt during phases of cultural growth and economic downturn.

Young men led the revolutions in England and France. Robespierre was only 31 in 1789, and he was 36 when he was sent to the guillotine. His adversary Danton and his ally Saint-Just were also young men, one in his early 30s and the other in his mid-20s. Although Lenin was older, the Bolshevik shock troops were made up of young men, as were the Nazi storm troopers. It was young men who faced off against the Soviet tanks in Budapest in 1956. This is because young men have more strength and more to gain.

While no one denies that Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia were ruthless autocrats engaged in human rights violations, the two were also responsible for liberalizing their socialist economies and opening their countries to western investment while resisting the Islamist push to restrict the rights of women and religious minorities.

Theocrats and Arabokleptocrats violate human rights. The euphoria of the Arab Spring has given way to the sobering challenge of creating rights-respecting democracies. The willingness of new governments to respect rights will determine whether those uprisings give birth to genuine democracy or simply spawn authoritarianism in new forms.

The creation of a rights-respecting state can be painstaking work that requires building effective institutions of governance, establishing independent courts, creating professional police, and resisting the temptation of majorities to disregard human rights and the rule of law. But the difficulty of building democracy does not justify seeking a return to the old order.

Theocrats and Arabokleptocrats impose a new tyranny. The uncertainties of freedom are no reason to revert to the enforced predictability of authoritarian rule. The path ahead may be treacherous, but the alternative is to consign entire countries to a grim future of oppression. The tension between majority rule and respect for rights poses the greatest challenge for the new governments.  Leaders in the Middle East are naturally eager to exercise their new electoral clout, but they have a duty to govern without sacrificing fundamental freedoms or the rights of minorities, women, and other groups at risk.

Theocrats and Arabokleptocrats now control Egypt.  The struggle over Egypt’s constitution, which is the most influential among countries in the region undergoing change, demonstrates the difficulty of protecting human rights.  Broadly worded and vague provisions on speech, religion, and the family have dangerous implications for women’s rights and the exercise of social freedoms protected under international law.

Among the Arab countries that have changed their governments, Libya best illustrates the problem of a weak state, a result of Muammar Gaddafi’s decisions to keep government institutions underdeveloped to discourage challenges to his rule. The problem is particularly acute with respect to the rule of law. Militias dominate many parts of the country and in some places commit serious abuses with impunity. Meanwhile, thousands of people remain in detention, some held by the government and others by militias, with little immediate prospect of being charged or of confronting in court whatever evidence exists against them.

In Syria, where 80,000 people have been killed in ongoing fighting, government forces have committed crimes against humanity and war crimes, while some opposition forces have also carried out serious abuses, including torture and summary executions.

Theocrats and Arabokleptocrats harass women.  The rights of women are a source of contention in many countries as Islamists gain electoral power. Some opponents contend that such rights are a Western imposition, at odds with Islam or Arab culture. International human rights law does not prevent women from leading a conservative or religious lifestyle if they wish. But too often governments impose restrictions on women who seek equality or autonomy. Calling such rights a Western imposition does nothing to disguise the domestic oppression, compelling women to assume a subservient role.

As theocrats and Arabokleptocrats take root, no issue will better define their records than the treatment of women. Speech that is seen to transgress certain bounds often tempts those in power to restrict the rights of others. Especially vulnerable are statements that criticize the government, insult certain groups, or offend religious sentiment. In these cases, the danger to free speech is greatest in the absence of strong and independent institutions that can protect rights.

 

Theocrats and Arabokleptocrats should exercise restraint, respecting the right to dissent, criticize, and voice unpopular views.  It is important to police those who use violence to suppress or punish speech. Those who react violently to nonviolent speech because they object to its content are the offenders; officials have a duty to stop their violence, not censor the offending speech.