Democratization and Authoritarianism in the Arab World

Beginning in December 2010, a series of uprisings swept the Arab world, toppling four longtime authoritarian leaders and creating an apparent political opening in a region long impervious to the “third wave” of democratization. Despite the initial euphoria, the legacies of authoritarianism—polarized societies, politicized militaries, state-centric economies, and pervasive clientelism—have proven stubborn obstacles to the fashioning of new political and social contracts. Meanwhile, the strong electoral performance of political Islamists and the ensuing backlash in Egypt have rekindled arguments about the compatibility of democracy and political Islam. Even though progress toward democracy has been halting at best, the region’s political environment today bears little resemblance to what it was before the uprising.

Please join us as contributors Daniel Brumberg, Hillel Fradkin, Steven Heydemann, and Tarek Masoud discuss these issues and the future of democracy in the region. The event also will celebrate the book’s publication, and copies will be available for purchase (cash or check only).

The International Forum for Democratic Studies at the National Endowment for Democracy invites you to a discussion celebrating the publication of

Democratization and Authoritarianism in the Arab World

A Journal of Democracy book edited by Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner, published by Johns Hopkins University Press featuring Daniel Brumberg, Larry Diamond, Hillel Fradkin, Steven Heydemann, and Tarek Masoud with introductory remarks by Marc F. Plattner, International Forum for Democratic Studies.

Friday, April 25, 2014. 12:00 p.m.–2:00 p.m. Lunch will be served from 12:00–12:15 p.m.  

RSVP (acceptances only) with name and affiliation by Wednesday, April 23

National Endowment for Democracy

1025 F. Street, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C.

Daniel Brumberg is an associate professor of government and co-director of the M.A. in Democracy and Governance Studies at Georgetown University. In addition to teaching at Georgetown University, Brumberg serves as a special adviser for the United States Institute of Peace’s Muslim World Initiative, where he focuses on democratization and political reform in the Middle East and wider Islamic world.

Hillel Fradkin is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, where he directs its Center on Islam, Democracy and the Future of the Muslim World. He is founder and co-editor (with Husain Haqqani, Eric Brown, and Hassan Mneimneh) of the Center’s Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, the leading journal on contemporary Islamism (sometimes known as militant or radical Islam). He is also general editor of Hudson’s monograph series on contemporary Islam and Islamism.

Steven Heydemann is the vice president of Applied Research on Conflict at U.S. Institute of Peace, where he specializes in the comparative politics and the political economy of the Middle East, with a particular focus on Syria. His interests include authoritarian governance, economic development, social policy, political and economic reform, and civil society.

Tarek Masoud is an associate professor of public policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, where he teaches courses on comparative political institutions, democratization, and Middle Eastern politics. He is the author of Counting Islam: Religion, Class, and Elections in Egypt (Cambridge University Press, 2014), and is the co-editor of Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics (Cambridge, 2004) and Order, Conflict, and Violence (Cambridge, 2008). His articles and reviews have appeared in the Journal of Democracy, Middle Eastern Law and Governance, Foreign Policy, and other publications.

Larry Diamond (moderator) is a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, where he directs the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL). At CDDRL, he is also one of the principal investigators in the programs on Arab Reform and Democracy and on Liberation Technology. He is also founding co-editor of the Journal of Democracy and co-chair of the International Forum for Democratic Studies’ Research Council.

Print Friendly
EmailTwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInPinterest

Soft censorship ‘a rising danger’

Soft censorship is a rising danger to press freedom and democratic processes around the world, say two leading experts.

It is an often little visible official effort to influence the media through means other than direct censorship or force, according to Vincent Peyrègne, chief executive of the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers, and Mark Nelson, senior director of the Centre for International Media Assistance.

These include the arbitrary placement of government advertising, as well as biased subsidies, licensing arrangements, and for broadcasters, frequency allocation, all of which can sustain or destroy the financial viability of media firms, they write for The Economist.

RTWT

Print Friendly
EmailTwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInPinterest

‘No space for opposition’ in corrupt MPLA’s Angola

rafael marquesAngolan journalists like Rafael Marques (left), who reports on high-level corruption by government officials, are facing the cudgel of criminal defamation, according to the International Press Institute.

Members of Angola’s ruling MPLA elite are conspicuous beneficiaries of lucrative government contracts and sinecures, the FT’s Lionel Barber notes.

Elias Isaac, a burly activist for the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa, an NGO funded by George Soros, sums up Angola’s postwar challenge, he writes:

“We have a multi-party democracy but we don’t have a pluralist society. There is no space for the opposition.”

Over lunch, Isaac describes how MPLA cells have infiltrated the private sector, while big business is dominated by former generals and the party. “It’s just like Russia – nothing has changed.”

Asked about the new sovereign wealth fund, Isaac says: “The president missed a great opportunity. He could have risked not appointing someone close to him. Instead he confirmed our suspicions of elitism and nepotism.”

RTWT

Marques is an award-winning journalist and human rights activist, specializing in political economy, the diamond industry, and government corruption. A former Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy, his writings have helped set the agenda for political debate in Angola by exposing abuses of power and endemic corruption.

Print Friendly
EmailTwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInPinterest

The Arab 1848?

The Arab upheaval has been the cause of profound bewilderment in the developed world and among policy makers, not least in Washington. Great enthusiasm for the Arab Spring was quickly replaced by confusion and concern regarding Islamic democracy or an Islamist Winter, depending on one’s perspective, analyst Azar Gat writes for The National Interest.

The European revolutions of 1848, the ‘Spring of Nations’, with their great hopes and dashed dreams, have often been cited as an analog. But what can the European experience of modernization and regime change teach us about the contemporary Arab world?

What makes nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Europe and the current Middle East similar is their relative position on the road to modernization. According to the most authoritative estimates, real GDP per capita in non-oil producing Arab countries is in the same range as mid- to late-nineteenth-century Europe. Urbanization rates in Egypt and Syria are, respectively, just below and above 50 percent, a level crossed by the United Kingdom around 1850 and by Germany around 1900. Illiteracy in the major Arab countries still hovers between 20 to 30 percent, again in the same range as in mid-nineteenth century Europe….

While these major indicators are of fundamental significance, differences remain that should also be factored in. Whereas nineteenth-century Europe and the West were the world’s pioneers and world leaders in modernization, today’s Arab countries are among the world’s strugglers, with only Africa trailing behind. Because of this, the Arab world enjoys many of the fruits of modernization as imports from outside—in communications, household appliances, computers, medicine and the like. This also means that the Arab world is susceptible to pressures from the hegemonic developed world – most notably economic, partly military, and, more ambivalently, intellectual – even if the efficacy of such pressures is inherently limited. Finally, there are all the differences of culture and historical traditions, for, as we know, the process of modernization, while most powerful and deeply transformative, is far from being linear.

In comparison and analysis, certain key concepts serve as prisms, Gat suggests: democracy, liberalism, development, nationalism, religion, and stability.

DEMOCRACY

The call for democracy has reigned supreme in the enthusiasm that surrounded the Arab Spring and the fall of the Old Regimes throughout much of the Middle East. It remains the strong expectation of Western opinion and the official demand by Western governments, most notably that of the United States. In today’s West, democracy is perceived as the ultimate ideal and political norm, unconditioned by extraneous circumstances. But in reality, rather than democracy being an abstract, timeless idea waiting to be recognized and adopted by right-minded people, its successful implementation has always depended on and closely correlated with a number of developmental factors variably embedded in the process of modernization.

LIBERALISM

Liberals everywhere in nineteenth-century Europe were deeply concerned that democracy would jeopardize liberal rights, such as respect for human life, free speech, freedom of religion, toleration for a diversity of opinion and identity, and, above all, the right to property. They feared that the masses would place little value on these hard-won sociopolitical norms, or else would be swayed by non-liberal creeds, whether traditionalist-conservative or revolutionary. ….

The Muslim Brotherhood’s reign in Egypt was too brief to offer conclusive evidence, but the omens were not very good. The Brotherhood in power were relatively restrained, for the reasons mentioned. Nonetheless, they were ideologically and politically intolerant towards the large Christian minority, the Copts, and failed to respond to widespread incidences of violence against them. ….

Western opinion and policy makers wish to see democracy installed and maintained, while also wishing that liberal values and norms be protected. They naturally tend to regard democracy and liberalism as inseparable, as the two have become in liberal democracies during the twentieth century. However, when the two sets of cherished values and norms conflict, which of them is to be given precedent? This question has long been absent from the script of Western and liberal democratic discourse. Moreover, liberal parliamentary regimes that were not democratic but later grew to become fully so were very much the norm in nineteenth-century Europe. But their opposite, the recently posited concept of ‘illiberal democracy’, has rarely if ever materialized anywhere. The reason for this is that liberal values seem to be essential for a deep respect for a democratic system, as opposed to an opportunistic or instrumental attitude towards it. Illiberal democracies do not only infringe on liberal values and norms, but are also ever in danger of turning undemocratic too.

RELIGION

In some ways, political and social Islam resembles political and social Catholicism in nineteenth century Europe. Catholicism organized itself politically in reaction against the forces of secularism, modernity, liberalism and democracy, preached nonworldly virtue and social justice, and practiced social work for the poor. The most significant political party that exemplified the movement was the Catholic Center Party (Zentrum), which was consolidated to defend Catholic rights in Protestant-dominated unified Germany after 1871. ….

Can political Islam travel the same road and be transformed into the Arab and Muslim equivalent of the Zentrum and Christian Democrats? …..

Such a development might take time and require a preliminary semiauthoritarian phase, as it did in Turkey. The apocalyptic violent streak that Islamism has developed in recent decades is a major obstacle. So also is Islamic universalism and its challenge to the Arab states. Whereas militant violence was practically absent in nineteenth century political Catholicism (though not in other, revolutionary creeds), Catholic universalism was a much stronger reality. It nonetheless receded before the European nation-states, which were far more deeply rooted than their supposed counterparts in the Middle East.

Azar Gat is currently the Ezer Weizman Professor of National Security and was twice Chair of the Department of Political Science at Tel Aviv University.

RTWT

Print Friendly
EmailTwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInPinterest

Spring Break Vacation

Democracy Digest blog posts will be light and sporadic over the Spring Break vacation period. Normal service resumes next week.

Print Friendly
EmailTwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInPinterest