The assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri set off a wave of protest in Lebanon and proved to be the final straw for its people who had put up with Syrian puppet-masters for nearly 30 years. This made some Middle East leaders a bit uncomfortable, as Hosni Mubarrak decided to allow multi-candidate elections for president and Saudi Arabia’s monarchy allowed free municipal elections in the oil-rich country. Meanwhile, the women in Iran are wearing pink and the men are wearing jeans and shaving their beards, all in the name of annoying the Mullahs. And don’t forget the women of Kuwait demanding voting rights. Meanwhile, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine has emboldened Moldolva to break away from Russian influence and hitch their wagons to Romania, which is becoming a strong United States’ ally. And before that, Georgia decided it had had enough of the old-Soviet thugs and cleaned house.
Nay-sayers will immediately discount many of these accomplishments with pessimism: "Saudi’s get to vote for the office of dogcatcher, so what? Mubarrak’s still gonna win the presidency. Hizbollah will get stronger in Lebanon. Russia’s gonna be angry!" And so on.
The nay-sayers, however, do have a point. Some of these moves toward democracy may simply be for show. Mubarrak may still have no intention of allowing the people to vote him out. Saudi Arabia may just be humoring it’s people. All of this is debatable. But during this great debate, one important point is missed: These democratic moves by despotic leaders, sincere or not, play an important roll in the process of political revolution.
In his groundbreaking book, The End of History and the Last Man, Francis Fukuyama explains the concept of legitimacy. A ruler cannot rule without legitimacy, without a belief by his followers in his right to rule. This is true in some sense in all forms of government. Even Stalin had a sense of legitimacy, if not with his countrymen, with his henchmen. They would not carry out his orders if they did not feel he was within his rights to lead. After his heinous crimes became too much, Khruschev renounced Stalin after his death to the party leaders in the Kremlin.
The elections in Iraq had a profound effect on the politics of the Middle East. Critics far and wide said it could never happen, it could never work. President Carter and near-President Kerry were some of the loudest voices on this notion before and after the event. They were wrong. The elections were a success. Arabs and Muslims can embrace democracy. Suddenly, the ideologies of the Ayatollah, Bashar Assad, Prince Abdullah and Hosni Mubarrak did not carry the weight, or legitimacy, they once did just a short time ago. So what do they do about it? They adjust.
But there is a funny irony to the political moves by these leaders: they don’t work. When a despotic ruler is fighting a democratic revolution, the concept of “throwing them a bone,” is counterproductive to their goal, which is survival. Mikhail Gorbachev is the classic example of this. The wind was blowing in a different direction since the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. He tried desperately to appease his critics at home while at the same time trying to save Soviet Socialism. It didn’t work. When you give people a little freedom, they want more. Yes, the Saudis can now vote for the office of dogcatcher, but because of this, they’ll soon want to vote for much more lucrative offices; The Lebanese are primed for the May parliamentary elections; and Iranians are getting cheekier with each passing day. These “democratic reforms” may just be a lot of smoke and mirrors, but they also serve as the seeds that will bring about the destruction of Middle Eastern authoritarianism.
Jim Rose blogs at Jim-Rose.com.
Archive Page