The Potential Effects Of Democracy On The Middle East

Larry Diamond's presentation explores the question of why there are no Arab democracies in the Middle East and North Africa. He shows us the relatively stagnant levels of democratic freedoms that have been the norm in the region for the past several decades. Diamond gives us a multitude of potential explanations for the absence of a sustainable democracy.

Current Issues, 35th edition, examines both the pros and cons of spreading democracy. This text explains that promoting democracy is in the U.S. national interest because democracy creates a safer, more stable world. Democratic nations cooperate with other nations and the U.S. better because they are more answerable to their citizens. The text also claims that such nations will deny terrorists from a base from which to plan and carry out attacks.

The type of government rule is an explanation for the invasion of Iraq that goes against the economic structure argument, that is the idea that whether states are democratic or not affects the way that states interact (Bova, 2012). Democratic peace theory suggests that democratic countries are less prone to engage in war than those that are non-democratic. As political scientist James Fearon argued, democracies have an advantage when it comes to crisis bargaining, democratic leaders when taking a stand during an international crisis cannot easily back down without backlash from the citizens at home. As a result, opposing states understand that the democratic leaders cannot make hollow threats and should be taken seriously (Bova, 2012).

Israel is a very interesting country in which to observe the role of Judaism in politics since it is strikingly different than most Western democracies (Goldberg, 2003). Discussions of democratic transformations have frequently been complicated by disagreements over the meaning of democracy. Most Political scientists characterize democracy as procedural, measured by the transparency and fairness of the essential procedures governing the election and behavior of government officials. Although some see this definition as incomplete, arguing democracy should be substantive. Substantive Democracy requires not only fair elections and proper government procedures but also fair government policy outcomes (Handelman, Chapter 2). While the way in which Israel is run makes it considerably to few a democracy, its population groups are particularly non-Western.

Consequently, US democracy promotion of course does matter at all according to all individual theoretical approaches. Under Realism approach, with the strategy of democracy promotion as part of foreign policy, US has sought to replace authoritarian governments with the West’s political system of democracy, regardless of traditional values and without concern for the consequences (Cox et al., 2000). It thus seems like “mission” rather than “promotion.” And this may somehow cause negative international relations between US and its “missions.” For Liberalism approach, US democracy promotion has been surrounded by a liberal culture that supports the rule of law, human, and freedom of expression as well as other core civil rights (Markakis, 2012). And a consequence of this has been a considerable focus on civil society strengthening while establishing democracy. This approach hence suggests US democracy promotion initiatives which are likely to establish positive international relations between US and its allies, rather than causing negative

Some scholars are arguing about the contradiction between Islam and Democracy while others say that there is no official decisive evidence in the main Islamic scripts. According the Islam the leader (khalifa) of the country or nation should be chosen by the people, but there is no clear method for re-elect after a period of time which make it a hesitation point in Islamic ideology. Others think that all these issues should be taken from the modern books where the movement of society needs are more applicable toward the new generation and the first world. However, the Middle East has a different story in the process of democratizing and still have a long way through since it has both Islam, Christianity, Jewish and other ethnic groups which make it more complicated in term of dealing with the process toward the democracy. The Arabic world has big range of counties which have many similarities, but also many differences, therefore we will focus on the African region in particular Egypt and Tunisia.

Democracy is a predominant authority regime that most countries both young and mature have adopted based on its accrued benefits. Defining democracy can be a daunting task as several countries may prefer to institute governing policies rather than adopt from other states (Rowley & Smith, 2009). The element of incorporating modified aspects of democracy is based on the difference in several factors that may range from religion, culture, to political ambition. Islamic states are considered complex as religion “sharia laws” play a prevailing role in the majority of the administration tasks conducted by the state. As such, Islamic countries defined by a democratic administration will prefer to integrate the alternative that will serve them best. This essay will evaluate two democratic regimes that were established in the Middle East, and further, discuss the factors that lead to Iran’s democratic failure over Turkey’s administration success.

A democratic government is typically thought of as one based on the consent of, and responding to the wishes of its constituents. A fundamental difficulty of devising a universal definition of democracy is that governments of widely varying, even diametrically opposed, structure and attributes can be perceived to be responsive to the needs and desires of its constituents. “Bourgeois” republics, fascist dictatorships can be and have been perceived by numerous and passionate advocates to meet this essential criterion for “democracy”. Advocates of the democratic peace proposition have an admittedly procedural definition for democracy, focusing on competitive elections, widespread suffrage, civil rights, freedom of the press etc. Many of these attributes and structures are easily identifiable. The debate focuses on the issue that whether political regimes possessing such relatively easy-to-identify characteristics behave differently –especially towards each other-than do other sorts of regimes. Democracy is a continuous concept; states are democratic to lesser or greater degrees, and therefore is it impossible to sort states into two categories, democratic and non democratic. This makes it necessary for those who are defending or evaluating the assertion that “democracies never fight wars against one another to acknowledge that in reality the assertion that they are defending, in more precise terms is ‘ States that have achieved a

Excepting controlled form of pluralism and democracy in Pakistan, Malaysia, Jordan and Turkey, there are no other functioning democracies among the remaining forty-four predominantly Muslim countries.(Husain, 1995, p172)

“The virtue of democracy is that it has found--in the course of its long struggle against unjust and oppressive rulers--forms and means that still comprise the best guarantees for protecting people from tyrants” . Democracy epitomizes the Western world and coincides with capitalism. According to the United States, it is the gold standard for governments. Conversely, political Islam is rising within majority Muslim nations as a counter to democracy. The rise fuels the debate within the academic sphere over if Islam and Democracy can coexist. Other kindling topics include Muslim Communism, a Marxist analysis of political Islam, and the concept of Jihad. Islam, and democracy, in a strict definition, are not compatible and, therefore, political Islam cannot exist within that realm. However, a broadened definition of democracy leaves room for religion to impact the political landscape, but it cannot be a main factor.

In December 2010, the Arab Spring began and created a collective popular movement to takedown authoritarian figures for more viable options. This paper poses the question: Why did the Democratization process differ between Tunisia and Egypt? The popular uprisings in the Middle-East had different effects on their governments mostly because of the difference in the democratization process.

The regional comparison of democratic aspirations (Table 2) shows no significant difference between the public opinion of people in the Middle East with other regions, particularly the West, about the importance of democracy and having a democratic system, free elections, and civil rights. Desire to have a democratic system has been consistently high in the Middle East compared to other regions, while no significant move toward democratization or political mobilization has occurred for a long time prior to the Arab Spring. Also, change over time in the desire to have a democratic political system among Middle Easterners over the span of a decade is insignificant (Figure 1). Therefore, one can argue that the democratic aspirations alone may not affect individuals’ decisions to become politically active and mobilize against authoritarianism.

Over the last century, the Middle East has been the location of ethnic rivalry, political and economic instability, religious conflict, territorial dispute and war. Much of this tension in the Middle East comes from the various interpretations of Islam and how the religion should be applied to politics and society. Over the last ten years, the United States and their allies have pushed to promote democracy in the Middle East. However, they too have many obstacles they must overcome. They face problems such as the compatibility of Islamic law and democracy, the issue of women’s rights, and there is always the problem of how to go about implementing a democratic reform in these countries. Many initially would assume that it is only the

Democracy is best defined as a type of governance where all entitled people contribute similarly either in an indirect or direct way in the process of elections in the purpose of contributing to development and establishment of rules. Nowadays, we are living in the core of a world surrounded by plenty of wars and each war maker tends to claim that he is fighting under the name of liberty and that he is yearning to reach democracy. The concept of democracy is very important and a vast topic to talk about and argue since democratic governance results to be the last hope for nation’s populations to reach their interests. These vary from safety and security to wealth and even joy. Democracy also assures that no single powerful person will ever have the ability to conquer a political system. A liberal country is characterized first by the laws and regulations that protect citizen’s right and separation of power, and second by fair and competitive elections. It is acceptable to encourage the pursuit of democracy but it’s totally intolerable to enforce it. Thus, the desire impulse and fight for democracy must come within the country yearning to achieve it rather than from the foreign under emblem of ‘imposing’ it since the imposition of democracy may help escalate conflict, violate national sovereignty, and lead to lack of sustenance of democracy.

Like a living organism, democracy must be born into a time where the parents, circumstances, are right to understand the potential of such a child, democracy, and the soil, society, may be described as the type of state that is ready to accept and nurture that child. Metaphors aside, democracy has been noted to provide a better opportunity for human development. Democracy is also commonly defined as a political system that is associated with free and fair elections. A democratic regime simply refers to a system of governance that places sovereignty in the citizen’s hands which allow them to contribute to the process of decision-making through their elected officials. Democracy is not as old as many may originally think. As recent as 1974,