| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| David Warren: D for democracy |
| 2004-12-13 |
| Salama Nimat, an Arab journalist writing from Washington for the London-based Al-Hayat, is shocked and awed to realize that the first two free and general elections in the whole history of the Arab nation will happen in January, "in Iraq, under the auspices of the American occupation, and in Palestine, under the auspices of the Israeli occupation". Makes him feel almost warm and fuzzy towards Western imperialism. He is the latest of several prominent Arab journalists bold enough to point at the obvious. He is so indiscreet as to mention that the only places in the Arab world where the press and media are truly free are now -- Iraq and Palestine. (Though the truth is Palestinian media are under the thumb of the Palestinian Authority.) Which is why he must file his articles from a considerable distance. As one of my own Arab correspondents put it, "If one has been occupied for some time by the Saud family, or the Assad family, or the Mubarak family, let alone the Hussein family, one begins rather to envy the sort of people who get to be occupied by the Bush family." (He is far from alone, but the fact I cannot use his name, without imperilling his life, suggests he is a long way from power.) The new voices are muted, and while there are not yet demonstrations, as on the streets of Kiev, demanding free, honest, and general elections in Riyadh, Damascus, Cairo and elsewhere, I do nevertheless sense a changing tone in even state-controlled Arab media. Call it a new curiosity about what democracy might entail. I cannot quantify it, but I can smell it. The thing itself ("democracy") is frankly a Western export, and has been accepted as an import from the West -- in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and no w all along that Pacific Rim. It was carried in their baggage by the British to India, and by Europe's Jews to the Levant. The Americans airlifted it to Afghanistan recently. It is presently pushing and shoving across the Steppes. Yet even where it is imposed, it is warmly welcomed. (See Afghanistan.) There is no question it is in demand. Why, then, are we only interested in whether Ukrainians may vote freely? Why aren't we equally engaged -- emotionally, intellectually, and morally -- when freedom, independence, and democracy are at issue in many other countries? I will tell you, but you won't like the answer. It is because the Ukrainians are white people, and the other candidates for democratization are yellow and brown. This is especially so in Western Europe, and nowhere more than in France: where the whole idea of spreading democracy beyond "our common European home" is characteristically met with anti-American sneering. Even the Ukrainians depended on quick thinking and response from the Bush administration to build international pressure. From Europe, they could only expect "mediators". For the people struggling to make or preserve democratic gains, in more exotic climes, it's the Bush administration or nothing. There is no huge Western media uproar about Zimbabwe, for instance. Or about Taiwan, where the election for the Legislative Yuan is taking place today, in which there is a good chance the "Pan-Green" coalition, which wants a free and independent Taiwan, may edge out the "Pan-Blue" coalition, consisting of the descendents of the old Kuomintang, whose leaders increasingly advocate appeasement of, and political integration with, mainland China. There are spooky resemblances to the situation in Ukraine. The incumbent President, Chen Shui-bian, is the Yushchenko of this piece, himself a moderate bourgeois politician trying to gain what independence he can for his country against constant Chinese threats. His rival, Lien Chan, who leads the Pan-Blue, is the Yanukovich -- prepared to serve Beijing's interests, even by stirring up domestic ethnic divisions that Beijing may exploit. The Putin of the piece is Hu Jintao, the Chinese President who is prepared to throw around his weight quite crudely to intimidate Taiwan, demanding subservience. In the time since I last wrote about this issue, the Red Chinese have added at least another hundred surface-to-surface missiles on the other side of the Taiwan Strait, pointed at the island's cities and infrastucture. It is a very crude weight, indeed. But do we care about this? Not that I've heard. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #14 Mamood: That was an excellent, insightful post. Please come by as often as possible. Your English is arguably better than mine.... and I'm a published author! |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2004-12-13 4:31:31 PM |
| #13 Mahmood, thanks for chipping in and clarifying this out. It is always better to have a first hand observation. |
| Posted by: Sobiesky 2004-12-13 3:18:59 PM |
| #12 Mahmood wrote some very funny posts some months ago about the arrival of Formula One racing, and the Bahrainis randomly wandering onto and over the track. I sent those posts off to a few non-bloggy friends who are F-1 fans... |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2004-12-13 3:18:52 PM |
| #11 I recommend you his blog. It is very funny and makes you think there is still hope for the Arab world. |
| Posted by: JFM 2004-12-13 3:01:47 PM |
| #10 Very cool: a thoughtful correspondent from Bahrain. And Shia, to boot! Welcome, Mahmood. I look forward to more intelligent commentary to inform my understanding of a part of the world where my husband once worked, but where I have never been. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2004-12-13 2:38:28 PM |
| #9 Mamood tipper didn't make the comment that offended you - Mike Warren did (Tipper is posting Warren's comment). I think Warren made this comment based on his discussion with his Arab co workers and customers (I have some Arab co workers and they do anything possible to avoid working for a black woman supervisor). |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-12-13 1:01:17 PM |
| #8 If one has been occupied for some time by the Saud family, or the Assad family, or the Mubarak family, let alone the Hussein family, one begins rather to envy the sort of people who get to be occupied by the Bush family." As Glenn would say, Heh! Great piece. Interesting post Mahmood. Your English is outstanding. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-13 12:09:28 PM |
| #7 What's strange here is that the supposedly "progressive" westerners who always proclaim their concern for human rights are the ones most firmly opposed to the spread of liberal democracy in the middle east. It's Bush and the neo-conservatives who are the liberal revolutionaries today. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-12-13 11:55:39 AM |
| #6 Hello Mahmood and thank you for your comments. I haven't seen you commenting here before! I understand your concerns regarding Tipper's post but I'm quite sure Tip is not a racist. The racism here is the assertion by the academic and cultural "elites" (not necessarily all located in Europe, but many of them are) that it's ok for the middle eastern, african, and south asian peoples to live under brutal hereditary thugocracies "because that's how 'they' are, poor brutes." |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2004-12-13 11:49:42 AM |
| #5 Good luck to you, Mahmood. Please keep posting and let us know how democracy develops in Bahrain and elsewhere in the Gulf. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-12-13 11:44:00 AM |
| #4 I don't think Tipper was being racist but was pointing out that other people - especially the Europeans - are racist and that is why they don't care about spreading democracy to the brown and yellow nations outside the Euro club. |
| Posted by: Anon1 2004-12-13 11:08:03 AM |
| #3 That's over simplifying it a bit Sobiesky. Quasi-parties are allowed in Bahrain, they exist but under a different name as "political party" translated into Arabic has some objectionable connotations to Islamists - go figure. Anyway. The biggest "party" in Bahrain along with 3 others boycotted the elections in 2002 due to their objection to the new constitution released by the King on Feb 14, 2002. They want to go back to the 1973 constitution as it gives more freedoms, allows for only one elected house (rather than one elected and one appointed as in 2002) and gives MPs quite a lot of power. All of these were curtailed in the 2002 constitution. So by boycotting the election and acting freely, this should have demonstrated to any observer that yes we do have democracy here. It might not be the best shining example, but for more than 50% of the people it's good enough to base development on, and that is what is happening now. When you say "not shi'a and not women" I don't get your meaning. If you suggest that Shi'as didn't vote then that's a half truth. I did and I am a Shi'a. The Al-Wefaq didn't and they are the biggest shi'a political party, but even some of them voted. As for women who constitute slightly higher than 50% of the registered voters, it is unfortunate that they didn't elect a single woman to the post. That hopefully will change in the future, and various organisations are working toward that end. The Political Parties law by the way is looking like it's getting the approval of the parliament into law possibly this session or the next, but it is certainly being discussed by both the boycotters as well as participating "political societies". You're right though, it is extremely important for the further development of political life to have legal political parties under whichever name people call them. Quana, yes Bahrainis are Arabs - mainly! As an island that has been the crossroads of various civilisations, we are quite a mix. For the most part the Bahrainis are Arabs, yet some descended from Persia, others from India and Pakistan and various other points around the world. The elections of 2002 were internationally observed and there were no "shenanigans" as far as the observers were concerned. And none of the opposition raised objections either. They did however accuse the government of coersion (every voter had to show his passport at the polling station and once voted they stamp the back of the passport - this drove some people to vote even though they didn't want to, but again most of those just screwed up the ballot paper and deposited in the box rather than mark a candidate's name). So yes, the story is not finished yet, we have an awful long way to go and politics being politics there is always going to be give and take. At least it is semi-working, and that is much better than it used to be in the 80s and 90s. Heck, if it was even as bad as 10% of how it was then, I would be most definitely rotting in prison for what I write! Lastly, tipper, democracy is not exclusive to skin-colour. That remark was racist to say the very least and is unbecoming of a discussion such as this. |
| Posted by: Mahmood Al-Yousif 2004-12-13 9:44:07 AM |
| #2 Quana, ...not'xactly. Not shi'a and not women. I'll emphasize some very relevant part below. The Parliament has 40 members elected in single-seat constituencies for a four year term. No parties are allowed in Bahrain. According to Rulers in parliamentary elections at 24 october 2002 the moderate Sunni Islamists and independents win 16 of 40 seats. Turnout is 53.2%. In a second round held on October 31, the independents win 12 seats and the Islamists 9. The secular representatives or independents secure a total of 21 of the 40 seats. |
| Posted by: Sobiesky 2004-12-13 8:20:05 AM |
| #1 Help me out here. Didn't Bahrain have an election under their new constitutional monarchy two years ago? Are the Bahraini Arabs? Did the constitutional monarchy in Bahrain provide a democratic election? I keep reading about these 'firsts' but no one mentions Bahrain, either to debunk the claim of a fair constitutional election or to confirm it. Mebbe I missed something (that happens). Mahmood, what you say? |
| Posted by: Quana 2004-12-13 8:12:08 AM |