Arab democracy’s plight [Archives:2006/939/Opinion]

Abdulbari Tahir
It is true that Arab democracy was born with an ailment. Arab revolutions achieved independence and sovereignty, promising liberty, socialism and unity. But these revolutions have relapsed or grown old before fulfilling their promises.

The destructive collapse led citizens to insist on their liberty and democracy, which were sacrificed for the sake of better living, independence, unity and Palestine's liberation. After half a century, Arab citizens discovered that the Palestinian case was more complicated and there was a retreat from the Arab revolution.

It became clear that absence of liberty was the main reason for abandoning the Palestinian problem and the compromises over it, besides the collapse of the Arab stronghold tower of Baghdad. The dangers facing Sudanese unity and the spread of poverty and illiteracy in most of the Arab world are other threats.

Again the problem of democracy is presented as the Arab world agenda. The call for constitutional democracy – adopted by Arab citizens and intellectuals – has been a public demand since the beginning of last century.

It is realized in the calls of Moroccan Independence Party leader Al-Fasi, the reforms of Khair Al-Deen Al-Tunisi, and the struggle of Abdulgader Al-Jaza'ari's. The scenario in Egypt – as a leader country of the Arab world – was more lively and effective due to Mohammed Ali's reforms, Orabi's revolution and national leader Saad Zaghlool's founding of the Egyptian Liberal Party. With political intellectual trends emerging since the beginning of the century, constitutional calls dominated Egyptian public life before the 1952 Egyptian revolution.

Sudan acquired independence through democracy. The Mahadi and Khatmi parties took the lead in founding the national state, whereas in Syria, the country's Ba'ath party was closer to liberal trend than coup thinking.

As for Yemen, the constitutional call began with World War II. Al-Hikma magazine was the first incubator for this rational demand in the kingdom of the dead (Yemen) as Salvatore Abonti called it. The founders of enlightenment movements, writers and intellectuals were calling for an Islamic Shoura state ruled by a constitution and an elected Parliament, at least partially. However, such scholars were accused of what was unthinkable: they were accused of abbreviating the Qur'an.

Yet in southern Yemen – particularly in Aden – during British occupation, the British protectorate became a destination for the liberal northern opposition. The Liberal Party was the mother party of the Yemeni Mutawakili state and the voice of Yemen in 1946. Labor syndicates appeared, from whose cloak political parties such as Ba'ath and Marxist movements emerged. Al-Rabita, “Bond of Southern Arabia,” was the first representative of these political streams.

Revolutionaries blamed liberals for not attaining independence; however, the accusation was not innocent because it aroused hostility against the crippled democracy, accused of committing to colonization. Hence, military dictatorships were established, constraining liberties, suppressing opinions and declaring martial law. Dictatorships canceled public participation. As a result they failed to protect autonomy, besides failing to fulfill its promises for unity and socialism. This situation enabled some of their factions to overtake power resulting in the democratic banner being raised again.

Arab nations found themselves between the hammer of colonization, which can pass their interests in the name of democracy against democracy-thirsty nations, and the anvil of tyranny, which is hostile and scared to death of freedom.

The Iraqi and Palestinian experiences are distinctive models. The U.S.-British occupation found no way out other than encouraging democratic elections. Elections were meant to be the last justification for Iraq's occupation, following the lie about comprehensive destructive weapons and the lie about Saddam Hussein's Al-Qaeda role.

Democracy is “an inevitable evil””