"There is no place in the Contemporary Middle Eastfor Western style democracy".

        Historically the Middle East has not taken kindly to outside, particularly western, western influences. Up until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire it was a cultural centrepiece and since early civilization a key trading post. The downfall of the Ottoman Empire led to colonisation by the British and French. The imperial powers that colonized the Middle East have not had a positive effect on the region, despite the age of colonialism now being consigned to history. The imposition of western style ‘Nation- States’ has often broken up ethnic territories. The example of the Kurdish population in Iraq is a case in point. The formation of Nation States has led to often unnatural state-centric politics where previously the nation played a more crucial role. Indeed Bromley suggest that it is the state which is the barrier to democracy in the Middle East and not Islam as is popularly concluded. The culture of tribes such as the Sunnis and The Shiite does not fit with the idea of nation sates. The creation of Israel in 1948 has left Palestinian refugees scattered all over the Middle East, particularly in Jordan and the Lebanon. The Nation State in the Middle East is one historical example of unsuccessful western influence; it is this failure which helps to form the negative opinions of western political phenomena, indeed Anwar Sadat writes

        “The problem therefore is not one of a Muslim East, it is that of an east deceived, an East colonized by a West that has sucked its blood. That East wishes to avenge itself, but not in the western manner of hostility and usurpation.

        All it wishes is to live freely and independently, that each nation shall make its own destiny, exploit the riches of her soil for the benefit of her own children, and respect the independence of other nations be they eastern or western.”

        One of the biggest movements in Middle Eastern Politics has been nationalism. The concept of Arab nationalism has been spearheaded in recent times by Nasser in Egypt. Other examples of nationalism include,

“ patriotism, Pan-Arabism, Pan- Islamism, Zionism, Islamic nationalism, Arab Nationalism, Ba’athism, moronite nationalism, Kurdish ethno- nationalism and so on”

The roots of Arab Nationalism can be found in the late 19th century, but the major growth in nationalism came with its growth in Europe. The decreasing influence of nationalism in contemporary Middle Eastern politics is perhaps another case of a western idea failing to be as successful in the east. Despite the fact European Nationalism has also dies a death, its failure in the Middle East, will for some people warn of similar consequences for democracy.

        For many in the Middle East the idea of democracy comes hand in hand with secularization.

        “In our part of the world people have misunderstood the term secular state, supposing it to mean a non religious state that wants to undermine religion. That is a false notion.”

The only secular state with a predominantly Muslim population is Turkey. It is for its secularization, amongst other things, that Turkey is considered a European country. The term secularization means that religion is a separate entity to the state, it becomes a private matter. For many the idea of separating religion from the state is unthinkable. The difficulties in considering secularization bring us to the point of assessing the compatibility of Islam with democracy and its offspring secularization and liberalization. Whilst democracy does not have to be secular, the imposition of a western style democracy would necessitate it.

        The issue of Islam’s compatibility with democracy has tended to be the key argument in discussing the chances of democracy within the Middle East. There are both positive and negative aspects of the Islamic religion when looking at democracy. As with all religions, it is the prerogative of the believer to protect and further the faith. The major fear for Islamics is a repeat of the secularization which has taken place in Europe since the enlightenment. As Hichem  Karoui observes

        “Thus at some point of the western development, we would have to talk about the epistemological break up rather than about paradoxical continuation of the Christian narrative.”

The idea of western democracy places the prominence of Islam at stake. For many this means that democracy is undesirable and severely hampers its chances in the Middle East. Another problem for Islamics is the idea of the people or any governmental institution being sovereign. For Islamics, God is sovereign. The Islamic religion dictates that every aspect of a person’s life should be considered in being a good Muslim. Democracy can also be hijacked by political Islamists, as seen in Algeria. The role of fundamentalism in shaping the prospects of democracy is crucial. Whilst some fundamentalist groups such as the Front Islamique du Salut, appear to embrace democracy and political participation, this is more a case of playing the enemy at its own game. It is fair to say that fundamentalists are more strongly opposed to western style democracy than the ‘average Muslim’. Despite this Islam is an egalitarian religion and its promotion of equality should help ally it with democracy. Islam also talks of shura (consultation) and a lot of Muslims pursue their right to shura. Whilst they are different concepts, the idea of the people having a say remains the same.  Another encouraging point for democracy is that, other than in theocratic Iran, shri’ia law does not form the letter of the law. Whilst most states do have their legislation based on shri’ia law it has become slightly removed from the core status it once held. If shri’ia moves away from the core it is not inconceivable to think that other aspects of Islam could in turn do the same. Paving a path for moderated secularization and putting in place a firmer foundation for democracy.

        Whilst many aspects of western culture are not wanted in the Middle East some advances, particularly in the field of technology, have ben embraced. Radios, televisions, cars, planes, film, mobile phones and computers are all commonplace in Middle Eastern society. All of these are western inventions fully adapted into eastern culture. The technological  advances in the Middle East signal that its people are by no means backward. They do know a good thing when they see one.

        The role of the economy has helped the forces of modernization in the Middle East. Economic developments often lead to political ones. A shift in a countries economic structure cannot be as easily controlled as a political one. The prosperity of some Middle Eastern countries through oil sales has meant that their economies have had to become more market friendly. As Hichem karoui writes

        “ Because democracy is not necessary for prosperity, countries can prosper by allowing economic freedom while maintaining their ancient habits, favouring various modes of maintaining social order, over political systems based on individual political liberty.”

The fact that Middle Eastern states have not been adverse to ‘ westernising’ when it profits them suggests that if a clearer case for eastern democracy could be made it would not be easily dismissed.

        Another key component to the establishment of democracy in the Middle East is the existence of civil society. Defined by Bernard Lewis as

        “ that part of society between the family and the state, in which the mainsprings of association, initiative and action are voluntary”

Lewis also writes

        “ Islamic law, unlike Roman law and it’s derivatives, does not recognise corporate legal persons and therefore there are no Islamic equivalents to such western entities as the city, the monastery or the college.”

Despite this civil society is progressing in the Middle East. With scholars at home and abroad there is the development of a learned society. With some political development, political parties are emerging  more and more frequently. Less economic intervention by governments means businesses are emerging. The evolution of civil society in the Middle East does give ground for hopes of democracy in the region.

        One half of the western style liberal democracy focuses on liberty. It is liberalization which “ may be taken to mean any activity which generates greater individual freedom in societies” Liberalism has made some progress, many who call for greater individual freedom would not call for democracy. Calls for participation in Iran, the Majlis al-shura in Saudi Arabia, and the relative freedom of the press in Oman all constitute positive steps for liberal democracy. Unfortunately the fundamentalist movement has managed to counter act the achievements of liberalisers. Whilst steps towards more individual liberty have been taken, the fundamentalist movement currently overshadows them.

        There is no one form of government in the Middle East. The theocracy of Iran, monarchy of Saudi Arabia and new born democracy of Israel mean that there is room for different styles of government. Whilst civil society and political participation continue to evolve there is still hope for some form of democratization in region. The current situation in Iraq provides the west with perhaps its last chance to prove the worth of liberal democracy. The chances of it succeeding are slim, as Mohammed Wahbi writes

“ when the west introduces democracy in the east it is not in the same form as the west. Westerners content with imposing a system designed to ensure western authority and domination, finally baptising it democracy and calling it the outcome of western civilization.”

Any attempt at democratizing post Saddam Iraq may already be doomed to fail;

        “Arab/Islamic civilization is uniquely exceptional in its undemocratic tendencies, and has created a political culture which means that the Arab world will never democratize in a meaningful way.”

Bromley has a more positive outlook,

        “ the middle east may only be exceptional it the timing and fragility of its democratization.”

I do not believe that western style democracy has a place in the contemporary Middle East, precisely because it is western style democracy. Democracy is not a one size fits all concept. As Hichem Karoui writes when commenting on the work of Deepak Lal,

        “ there is no need for people with different cultures to import the course of western individualism as a “change package” in order to succeed.”

Free civil society and lives of liberty may well yet become a reality for the people of the Middle East. However if it does it will be ‘ eastern style democracy’ and probably not even called democracy. As Kipling wrote “ west is west and east is east and never the twain shall meet” That is why I believe, and I do not believe it to be a bad thing, we shall never see liberal democracy in the Middle East.

---