Since we're so involved in speaking of the "treaty" with Iran, we should remember the events of the Arab Spring, the fallout of which has blanketed the Middle East. But, the Arab Spring has given way to what pundits and historians are now calling the Arab Winter. The events of the Middle East from January 2011, where briefly-democratic societies have indeed "revolved" all right: right back to where they started.

This begs a rather important question: what must the new leaders of former dictatorships do to ensure that they actually transition to democracy, and not let history repeat itself yet again?

February 11, 2011 marked the beginning of a new era in Egyptian history, said many pundits at the time. Hosni Mubarak resigned, as did his new "vice president" (the former state security chief) and turned over power to the Egyptian equivalent of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, the "Supreme Council of the Armed Forces". I was initially impressed with the Egyptian Army as they kept their promises. They disbanded the National "Democratic" Party and confiscated its assets to the State, held three-stage elections for the majlis [Parliament] from which no party--except the NDP--was prohibited from participating, and turned over authority of the state to a president of the people's choice, even though it was a Muslim Brother (the military of Egypt were never on good terms with them). Mohammed Morsi became Egypt's first truly democratically-elected chief of state since...ever.

But a year or so later, the Army again seized power and put Morsi under house arrest. This may have come as a surprise to the rest of the World but probably not to average Egyptian who, like their Roman counterparts, have "seen it all." This may have been for good reason, but it was a markedly different kind of martial law than that of 2011-12. Toward the end of the period of martial law Gen. Sisi himself resigned from the Army so that he could run for president. Interestingly (and suspiciously) enough, he won round two by a 97% majority. Sis is now president; but elections for parliament have, rather suspiciously, yet to be held.

This is an old story. Many democratic revolutions have resulted in a 360-degree turn which seem to support the maxim of an English historian (whose name I cannot remember off the top of my head) that, "After every revolution, you see the same men sitting in the front parlor, along with the same flatterers."

The fault, I believe, lies in the inexperience of the newly-elected leaders of these fledgling democracies when it comes to the style of their rule. Morsi attempted to push on the People of Egypt, via some degree of executive fiat, a constitution leaning toward "islamist" rule. Like the new leaders of Iraq, he assumed when the People hand you a democratic mandate, they're handing you carte blanche to act as you please. After all, they chose you, and you have the People behind you. So you do not have to negotiate or compromise with your opponents, because they lost the election. It smacks of one of the less reputable popes who famously remarked: "We have the papacy, now let us enjoy it."

It seems to be in these fledgling democracies that the inexperience of the newly-elected leaders leads them to believe that a democratic mandate is somehow commensurate with a mandate from heaven. In more "mature" democracies, we know this is not the case. You still have to compromise with your opponents, even after you have won the election; or if you don't have to, you at least have to adhere to a standard of conduct in your politics that reflects the fact that your own power is not unlimited, just because you wield a mandate from the masses entitling you to be there. It might entitle you to be there, but it does not entitle you to act as you please. A constitution, whether written (as in most countries) or unwritten, based instead on a traditional standard of practice (the UK for example), limits the actions of democratic rulers.

But in places where political society has not reached the maturity level of most successful democracies, democratic "revolutions" do actually revolve--not in a 180-degree shift, but a complete 360-turn back to "same shit, different day" under the previous Dear Leader. We can sit here all day and list "unsuccessful" revolutions (one in which an "illegitimate" government was overthrown and the people enjoyed a very brief period of optimism, only to see their hopes dashed as it quickly replaces itself with a government practically indistinguishable from the old one). But we don't have all day, and that's probably as long as it would take us. It is, again, an old story. Probably the most successful and long-lived democratic (or at least republican) revolution was that of ancient Rome. (The "democratic" replacement of Tarquinius Superbus and his predecessors with consular government in 509 B.C. which lasted for about four and a half centuries; depending on which date you use for the terminus post quem of the death of the Roman republic.)

How can dictatorships become democracies and STAY that way? Should we just give up hope and assume that some societies just can't "cut it" as democracies? Or is there something these new leaders can do to preserve the very letter of their revolutions? The obvious answer would be that the leaders need to learn, a democratic mandate is not commensurate with a mandate from heaven. Even if you are legitimately in power, you can lose that legitimacy due to improper behavior. Many leaders and many societies do not realize this.

So maybe in the end, the situation is hopeless, and some societies simply cannot handle democracy? Maybe they should have just allowed themselves to remain under the drudgery and oppression of life under Hosni Mubarak, Zine al Abidene Ben Ali, or Bashar al-Assad? Or is there a "way out" of some sort?

In my opinion there is no simple answer that can be universally applied. But one must remember that American democracy, and its British counterpart(s), did not emerge from the womb as fully-formed, post World War II democracies. One could say it can best form gradually, if the right steps are taken, in just the right order. Sometimes it forms in fits and starts (as in the UK). Sometimes it can form as the result of external force.

This article in Wikipedia includes a timeline of the Egyptian Revolution(s):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Revolution_of_2011#Tunisian_revolution

hacker

So maybe in the end, the situation is hopeless, and some societies simply cannot handle democracy?

Any society can handle democracy if it has a sound foundation of constitutional liberalism.
The failure in Egypt is that its foundations are not of constitutional liberalism but of a military council. And the failure if Mubarak's personally. He could not recognize that the institutions of liberal democracy need time to grow and establish stronger roots. And that the military needed time to transform itself slowly.
He treated his electoral triumph as a mandate that in reality he didn't have and over stepped.

Democracies generally need time to develop. What we think of as full fledged democracies weren't true democracies until after WWII.

Since 1945 Western governments have, for the most part, embodied both democracy and constitutional liberalism. Thus it is difficult to imagine the two apart, in the form of either illiberal democracy or liberal autocracy. In fact both have existed in the past and persist in the present. Until the twentieth century, most countries in Western Europe were liberal autocracies or, at best, semi-democracies. The franchise was tightly restricted, and elected legislatures had little power. In 1830 Great Britain, in some ways the most democratic European nation, allowed barely 2 percent of its population to vote for one house of Parliament; that figure rose to 7 percent after 1867 and reached around 40 percent in the 1880s. Only in the late 1940s did most Western countries become full-fledged democracies, with universal adult suffrage. But one hundred years earlier, by the late 1840s, most of them had adopted important aspects of constitutional liberalism -- the rule of law, private property rights, and increasingly, separated powers and free speech and assembly. For much of modern history, what characterized governments in Europe and North America, and differentiated them from those around the world, was not democracy but constitutional liberalism. The "Western model" is best symbolized not by the mass plebiscite but the impartial judge.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... -democracy

The expectations of westerners that what developed slowly, and haltingly in their own countries can be established as full fledged and functioning in places with no liberal institutions is misplaced. Its especially disheartening to find that often when countries do find a path to self determination their efforts have been over turned by Western powers who's commercial and strategic interests cause them to subvert self determination.

Is there a democracy or representative democracy that is working in the Middle East, RickyP?

bbauska

Is there a democracy or representative democracy that is working in the Middle East, RickyP?

Define "working...."
Democracy devolves power to more people and when functioning ensures that government delivers improved quality of life, liberties and well being to a broad portion of the populace. There have been attempts to measure this ;like the social progress index. You'll note that the countries with the highest showing in this index are established democracies. Usually


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ress_Index

According to the Social Progress Index only 3 Middle Eastern countries are fairly high in rank.. They rank 37, 39 and 40. One is Israel. The others are the UAE and Kuwait. Israel is democratic (not counting the occupied territories), and the UAE and Kuwait have some liberal institutions and very limited democratic expression...
Tunis and KSA are 65th and 70th. Egypt 84th . Yemen 125 of 132...
A nation as rich as KSA, if it were democratic, would provide greater standard of living to more people if it were democratic... Being a monarchy, like England before democracy, only the elite have real quality of life.... If the middle class held political power perhaps the nation would be like the more developed democracies? I think so.

The three that you listed (Israel, UAE and Kuwait) are the most westernized, correct? Perhaps the problem with the democratization of the region is the Arab culture, not the west. Those that become more westernized have shown more success.

As for the definition of working...
Freedom to do what you wish without impinging upon another's rights
Freedom to worship as you choose
Freedom to assemble
Freedom to address grievance to government
Freedom from government actions against you for opinions opposite those in power
Freedom of the press

Do you agree with these? Which nation in the Middle East is achieving this standard?

You (as do I) seem to bring the homosexuality issue up a great deal. How is homosexuality treated in the Middle East? What countries are more accepting than others? How do they compare to the US's policies regarding homosexuality?

Do you think you focus on nations where there is worse discrimination, or only focus on the "evils" of the US and Israel?

bbauska

Do you agree with these?

I think its a long, long way from comprehensive....
They make up some of the aspects of well being that the social progress index labels "opportunity".But not all of them. For instance "Freedom over life choices" doesn't appear to be in your list.
Why incomplete otherwise ? Well, if you are starving, or liable to be a victim of crime or war violence, or can't afford health care or have access to health care .... all of the freedom you allude to is worthless.
People have many needs and wants...
I'll refer you to the social progress index for what i think is comprehensive.

http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/data/spi

bbauska

The three that you listed (Israel, UAE and Kuwait) are the most westernized, correct? Perhaps the problem with the democratization of the region is the Arab culture, not the west. Those that become more westernized have shown more success.

That depends what you mean by westernized.
If you mean they have liberal institutions developed to a greater extent. okay. But Kuwaits culture is very similar to other Middle Eastern nations .... That proves that liberal institutions can develop within the Middle East.
I'll note that Kuwait is still a monarchy and that the kind of freedoms that you list are somewhat limited. However there is a unified legal code, property rights, and some liberal laws. That it can be trumped by the monarch is still a reality in Kuwait however...

http://www.infoprod.co.il/country/kuwait2f.htm

By the way, if you want to compare, in a graphic fashion, any of the elements (including tolerance or acceptance of homosexual that are measured in the social progress index you can click on any element and compare the worlds nations on the map. Its neat.

Any society can handle democracy if it has a sound foundation of constitutional liberalism.
The failure in Egypt is that its foundations are not of constitutional liberalism but of a military council. And the failure if Mubarak's personally. He could not recognize that the institutions of liberal democracy need time to grow and establish stronger roots. And that the military needed time to transform itself slowly.
He treated his electoral triumph as a mandate that in reality he didn't have and over stepped.

"Foundation of constitutional liberalism": that's a good point. It's also not a failure of Mubarak personally, in my opinion, if I proceed via your line of thinking about military council. If you look at Egypt's "timeline" it's one of one coup after another. Not as bad as Syria, in which democracy (by that line of thought) has a snowball's chance in hell of operating successfully, or Iraq (ditto); but nonetheless, they've had one putsch after another. I do not blame Mubarak personally or in entirety for the failure of the attempt at democracy in Egypt: there's likely enough blame to go around, currently and historically. It was reported in BBC (I haven't been able to find the article) toward the end of the first post-Jasmine Revolution period of martial law or military rule, whichever is the correct term, that Egyptian liberals wanted military rule to continue. Likely because the Muslim brotherhood won the elections for parliament, so I guess that would make sense if you're an Egyptian "liberal" (depending on how one defines "conservative" and "liberal").

Egypt's liberal constitutional parliamentary order lasted about 30 years: from the establishment of the Constitution of 1923, to the Free Officers' coup d'etat of July 23, 1952. They at first forced all the parties to apply for "re certification" with the government, but eventually abolished all of them (and then dissolved parliament, replacing the parties with a special one-party Nasserist state...but all that happened gradually).

The Egyptian people have never been directly involved in any direct elections for the presidency until 2005, but that was pretty much a sham. It was in my opinion the breakdown of the original parliamentary order in 1924 (the British forcing the first truly elected leader of Egypt to resign by threatening to fire on Ras al-Tin palace, an event the liberal order never recovered from). For the exact events:

http://www.amazon.com/Nassers-Blessed-Movement-Officers-Revolution/dp/0195069358/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1428437130&sr=8-1&keywords=nasser%27s+blessed+movement

UAE is not an elected federation but it does have some degree of liberalization. It's a federation between 7 emirates (all former British protectorates formerly called the "Trucial States" until independence in 1967). The emir of Abu Dhabi is always the "president" and the emir of Dubai the "vice-president & prime minister" of the federation.

Kuwait actually has an elected parliament and it's gaining more and more control of the cabinet over time.

Tell me Ricky what was "suffrage" like in Canada in 1967 when the Dominion of Canada was established and its first parliament, with MacDonald as PM, elected? I do not remember how much the electorate expanded off the top of my head in the US but the presidency of Andrew Jackson is remembered as the "Jacksonian Democracy" period for a reason. Secret ballots became the standard (viva voce voting was abolished) and the electorate expanded (among white men at any rate). But I don't remember how much. I'll have to look it up.

Maybe even one event, like the ouster of Sa`ad Zhaglul Pasha as prime minister of Egypt by the British in 1924, can screw things forever?

And your last sentence I quoted was exactly what I mean: they treat an electoral mandate as commensurate with a mandate from heaven. "I won the election, the people therefore have allowed me to do as I please, and there is no need to compromise with my opponents because they lost."

I cannot find a link to it but a political science professor of mine, an Egyptian by birth until he came to the US for his doctorate and became a citizen, spoke of "The Hydraulic Society". I'll try to find more about it but it's interesting and kind of makes sense. It certainly indicates that ancient history can be a great handicap to modern democracy.

First off, (and I am intrigued!) what the heck is "Freedom over life choices"?

Secondly, I disagree that poverty, non-access to health care, or war/crime violence victim-hood have preclude opportunity.

I offer myself as example.
I offer Dr. Ben Carson as example
I offer this Palestinian refugee's story as example
http://thestoryexchange.org/role-model-stateless-refugee-immigrant-entrepreneur/

I wish you would expect more from people.

Thirdly, to be more westernized is is not the end of the journey. The more westernized a Middle Eastern nation, the more democratic policy it displays. Would you agree with that? Just because Kuwait does not have elections and a representative government, does not mean that it cannot be more open to western democratic reforms than a nation that does not have that as a focus.

Compare Kuwait/Israel/UAE to Syria/Iran/Yemen.

ALL governments Earth are not perfect. But to focus on the minor faults of some nations, while disregarding the major faults of others on the same issue is intellectually dishonest. I wold ask that you look clearly at the nations of the world that are VERY anti-homosexual and compare them to the US and tell me which is more open to the "social progressive index" before criticizing the policies of a nation that are comparatively progressive. To disregard clearly anti-homosexual laws that call for capital punishment is nothing but HYPOCRITICAL.

Yes, there are some in the US who do not wish to allow Gay Marriage. Compare that with Iran, and the death penalty for homosexuality.

You don't like religious control of the government. Just what do you call that?

bbauska wrote:Secondly, I disagree that poverty, non-access to health care, or war/crime violence victim-hood have preclude opportunity.

I offer myself as example.
I offer Dr. Ben Carson as example
I offer this Palestinian refugee's story as example
http://thestoryexchange.org/role-model-stateless-refugee-immigrant-entrepreneur/

I wish you would expect more from people.

They may not completely preclude success, but they do limit the chances. Lack of access to healthcare tends to increase the risk of premature death or long term conditions. Victims of violence and war are more likely to have PTSD. Poverty increases various risk factors, especially in sharply divided societies like monarchies and dictatorships.

I wish you would stop expecting everyone to have the same opportunities and luck you did.

For every Carson, you or Kiblawi, how many dozens, tens, or hundreds do not manage to get out?

So maybe in the end, the situation is hopeless, and some societies simply cannot handle democracy? Maybe they should have just allowed themselves to remain under the drudgery and oppression of life under Hosni Mubarak, Zine al Abidene Ben Ali, or Bashar al-Assad? Or is there a "way out" of some sort?

Like the old Belloc poem:
"always keep ahold of nurse
For fear of finding something worse."

?

Democracy alone is not the point - it also has to come along with other changes, culturally, in order to work. Some are 'societal', but mainly it's about how the main participants behave. South America has taken a long time and a lot of pain to get liberal democracy, and it's not all that clear it is really there across the whole continent.

hacker

It's also not a failure of Mubarak personally, in my opinion, if I proceed via your line of thinking about military council

Mubarek could have played his cards very differently. And frankly I thought he would .
The Military has always controlled what happens in Egypt. In fact, its a lot like Milo Minderbinder's character in Catch 22.
It owns all kinds of businesses. A career in the military means a career in business. Both while serving and after. Here's an article from Al Jazeera about it..(They say the army accounts for between 10% and 40% of Egypts economy. And thats not military equipment. Its day cares, travel agencies and pasta factories...)

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 81894.html

With his election, Mubarek could have made moderate changes and advanced his agenda incrementally. But when the Army saw a threat to their welfare as an institution from fundamental Islamic law, Mubarek's elected government had to go.
Although the Armed forces are antidemocratic, it is also a very popular institution. Perhaps because there are so many Egyptians who are part of it, or who's relatives have benefited from their miltary service .

hacker

Tell me Ricky what was "suffrage" like in Canada in 1967 when the Dominion of Canada was established and its first parliament, with MacDonald as PM, elected?

It was 1867. You had to be a man 21+ , and in some provinces certain races were excluded. Also aboriginals.

And we didn't have universal suffrage till 1960 when aboriginals were granted the vote. Big of us.

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/browseSubjec ... Rights.asp

Well, hell, Switzerland didn't give the right to vote to women until 1973...

Poverty increases various risk factors, especially in sharply divided societies like monarchies and dictatorships.

While I do not agree with Danivon all the time on social issues I have to admit, poverty is a bad thing in more ways than just compassion or anybody's concept of "social justice". It's also a national security threat if you want to put it coldly in terms of raison d'etat. And if you don't believe that just ask King Louis XVI or Tsar Nicholas II. But there are of course other such factors which can be destabilizing.

Actually Ricky a lot of people in Egypt attempt to get OUT of the military via bribery. I think there's also a fee you can pay as well or some other exemptions. I'd have to check for sure (not sure where but I guess I could Google it if I used the right words).

bbauska

First off, (and I am intrigued!) what the heck is "Freedom over life choices"

?

The percentage of respondents answering satisfied to the question, “Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your freedom to choose what you do with your life?

”

http://www.socialprogressimperative.org ... efinitions

bbauska

Secondly, I disagree that poverty, non-access to health care, or war/crime violence victim-hood have preclude opportunity

.

reality bites.
For every exception you find there are hundreds of thousands who died young in a war or from hunger or disease. Even in some supposedly wealthy nations there are the underclass caught in a cycle of poverty that conditions like inadequate health care, poor educational opportunities, crime and exploitation.



bbauska

The more westernized a Middle Eastern nation, the more democratic policy it displays. Would you agree with that?

No. Because westernized has nothing to do with liberal democracy.

"Liberalism, either as a conception of political liberty, or as a doctrine about economic policy, may have coincided with the rise of democracy. But it has never been immutably or unambiguously linked to its practice.

"
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... -democracy

Zakkaria does a great job in this article of dissecting liberal institutions and democracy. Democracy can't survive without sufficient liberal institutions - but liberal institutions can exist in less than fully democratic nations...

The rest of your post is off on a tangent that has only a little to do with the topic. If you look a the social progress index I refered you to, you'll note that they take into account things like anti-homosexual laws and forced marriage etc. But they don't eliminate all of the other factors that contribute to social progress. There are many and its complex.
Factors which you seem to think are unimportant in delivering social progress for a nation. And which i guess you think a government shouldn't be asked to deliver as a part of its role?

hacker

Actually Ricky a lot of people in Egypt attempt to get OUT of the military via bribery. I think there's also a fee you can pay as well or some other exemptions

Coptics don't serve. Or several other minorities. I suppose one could buy an exemption, but for many its where they learn their trade (working class) or get entrance to a business management postion (middle class and higher)
I'd encourage you to read the AL Jazeera article. The military in Egypt is unlike the military in any other nation. Its really a business.