How do Arabs think of democracy? I am not an Arabist but there is one impression that stands out in my mind from this Arab spring: the call for leaders to step down and be replaced. Beyond that, I suspect the ideas of democracy among common men and women in the Middle East are rather hazy.
Nevertheless, the World Values Survey undertaken from 1995-6 to 2001-2 shows Arabs strongly agreeing with the statement that “democracy may have problems but it's better than any other form of government”. These UNDP studies show also that Arabs were the regional group that most strongly rejected authoritarian rule defined as a strong leader who does not have to bother with a parliament and elections.* The meaning of such responses is still less than crystal clear.
Watching from afar as Arab protests have played out in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Bahrain and Syria, we have heard unceasing calls for "democracy" and "freedom". Yet, we Westerners should perhaps stop and consider the possibility that maybe we don't know what they are talking about. And Arab readers of English-language commentaries should also ponder the chance that language and tradition could play tricks on all of us. Slogans, internet postings and interviews are translated, either by the demonstrators themselves or by reporters. How do we know what they really mean? What does "democracy" mean to most Arabs – and to young Arabs in particular? While a Westerner's first thought may be that we all know what democracy is, the thing they have on their mind may not be the same as the image raised in our minds by their shouts.
Of course, there are different types of democracies, and in recent decades a broad range of would-be democracies have emerged around the world that don't fit the classical mould. Democracy theorists have been struggling to classify them. For some of those imperfect variants the label “diminished subtypes” has been suggested** – these are cases that have some characteristics of democracy, but lack others. Sort of like a judgement of "not bad, but not quite".
Indeed, some countries in the Middle East claim to have a kind of democracy not found in the West, Libya under Gaddafi with its People's Committees being the most prominent case. On a visit there in 2003 I was told by my guide that Libyans all governed themselves by participating in the committee meetings for their neighborhood, and there was hardly ever any disagreements because “we all understand what is the right thing to do”. In reality, since the 1970s Gaddafi's Libya has had two pillars of government – the People's Committees that have mobilized support for the regime, and the Revolutionary Security pillar that exercises actual control in secret. Of course, the official account of the system only mentions the first pillar. The farce of Gaddafi's system did not really fool his people for long, but they went along, and young people like my guide naturally started out believing what they were told.
But Libya as Gaddafi made it could hardly be classified as a “diminished subtype” of democracy – it is rather what Weber called a “sultanistic regime”, an unlimited despotism. Lebanon, on the other hand, could perhaps be classified as a diminished subtype of democracy, diminished due to its constitutional grant of parliamentary seats to specific groups without regard for their popular support. Turkey might be another example of a diminished subtype, due to the constitutional role of the military and the judiciary.
Beyond these examples, however, traditional Arab ideas pertinent to democracy are not terribly impressive. There is the obligation (non-binding) of the ruler to consult with the ruled, and about governing "with mutual consent" (among the elites, that is). In fact there is no Arab concept of democracy even remotely reminiscent of the Western idea, whether in theory or practice.
Given this foggy state of affairs, what could the demonstrators mean? For the sake of simplicity, let us say there are two main possibilities. Either (1) the demonstrators know what real democracy is, and say they want it. Or (2) they have something else in mind that they call "democracy", which may be short of or different from the Western idea, but is something that would still be a huge improvement to them.
Admittedly not knowing the true answer, I suspect a tiny fraction of one percent of the demonstrators may fit the first alternative (they know that what they are talking about is what their Western listeners think they are talking about), while the rest, the vast proportion of them, are looking only for one big thing: to get rid of the present ruler NOW and be given a chance to elect a different one closer to their preference. Then, if even that person were to prove a bad choice, they want the additional chance of getting rid of that leader as well in a future election. This big dream is the primitive essence of democracy – asking for bad leaders to step down, asking for change for the better, and asking for a chance to throw even the new leaders out if they don't deliver.The hard part about it all, of course, is to organize it so that it can become a durable system for the long term. This is where some societies offer better preconditions than others for what Westerners call democracy.
Though I don't agree with Thomas Friedman's recent claim that the East European countries revolting in 1989 were so much simpler in societal make-up than those of the Middle East, I do share his pessimism about the prospects for the Middle East (“Pray, Hope, Prepare”, New York Times, April 12). If the demonstrators and freedom fighters are lucky, as I see it, they may be granted the first part of their wishes, getting rid of the tyrant - like the Tunisians and Egyptians have done. The next challenge – getting the opportunity to scuttle even their next ruler – may be no more than a dream vision.
TO MAKE A COMMENT, please check the option "anonymous" before clicking "publish" - even if you sign by name, otherwise the system will not show your comment.
*M. Browers, Democracy and Civil Society in Arab Political Thought, Syracuse University Press, 2006, p 4, citing UNDP.
** D. Collier & S. Levitsky, Research Note: “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research.” World Politics. Volume 49, Number 3, April 1997, pp. 430-451.
6 comments:
Lost in Translation?
Did we not see, to a lesser extent, difficulties in translating Western style democracy to the former Soviet Union, particularly Russia? Certainly a desire to throw off the shackles of oppression were there, to remove the deficiencies of the Soviet/Communist system. But did the people really now what they were getting in to?
My impression is that it was a mixed bag. It was easier to "translate" Western style democracy to some of the ex-soviet areas than to others. Democracy has not been that easy for many Russians to adopt, who in my experience accept - and indeed often prefer - a strong authority, which they now have with Putin, instead of diffuse democratic leadership. Putin's system resembles "competitive authoritarianism" rather than democracy, as I see it. The easiest transit to democracy in former Soviet areas came where real democracy had been tried before, especially in Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, even if it also failed the first time around in all of these places before they were sovietized. So I would say, the "democratic translation" was NOT particularly easy to Russia. Yes, they wanted to throw off the shackles, but as you suggest, the Russians hardly knew what they were in for, in contrast to the Lithuanians, Estonians and other Baltic nations.
I fully agree with you Olav, that it is one thing wanting to overthrow a despotic regime, something quite different knowing what to want instead. I also agree with you the transitions following the collapse of the Soviet Union were a lot less complicated that what is facing the Arab States in North Africa (although one should not forget the mass murders in former Yugoslavia and the present situations in, for example, Ukraine and Belarus).
What I am not so sure of, however, is if the problem really is what (ordinary) people want - if it is the case that they are not really that interested in getting a democratic state. Or maybe rather, what are we ready to offer at the altar of democracy? Can we blame people in Russia, for thinking that life was easier during Soviet times? Should we be surprised hearing people from Syria (I have friends who actually said so) saying that life was better when Assad had full control (admittedly, these friends are Christians, and I have been told that Christians in Syria were treated comparably well, as long as they did not criticize the regime)?
I certainly do not think that despotic regimes should be defended, but asking a generation or two to suffer during the post-revolutionary phase, with the only uncertain hope that their grandchildren will get a better life as their comfort, is asking a lot. Would we, affluent Westerners, give up our privileged lives if that was what was needed to safeguard democracy? Some would. Most would not, I am afraid.
Björn H
That is of course true, Björn. But it is the Arab phenomenon that is the puzzle here. The extraordinary thing, I believe, is that this year's uprisings are happening in countries that have not seen protests in many years.
My cousin recommended this blog and she was totally right keep up the fantastic work!
Thanks, will do my best.
Post a Comment