A pivotal year for pluralism in the broader Middle East by Pavel Molchanov, Foreign Policy Association
http://www.fpa.org/newsletter_info2489/newsletter_info.htm Taking a long view of democracy's spread across the globe, some years stand out as true landmarks: for instance, 1989 in Eastern Europe and 1994 in South Africa, to cite two recent examples. It may well be that, in time, 2005, and particularly the second half of the year, will be seen as one such landmark. What makes the year especially significant is that it served as a harbinger of political pluralism in the broader Middle East, a region still characterized by an almost total lack thereof. In three key regional players Iraq, Syria and Turkey 2005 brought winds of political change. That Iraq's constitutional referendum in October and parliamentary elections two months later were the year's seminal events within the context of Middle Eastern reform is hard to dispute. For all the obvious reasons the country's physical size and population, proximity to other regional powers, oil resources, and geopolitical visibility for the past decade the eyes of the world on October 15 and December 15 were on Iraq, particularly its four Sunni-dominated provinces. That the constitution was approved by 78% of the overall population, and all but two provinces in spite of inter-ethnic mistrust, almost daily acts of terrorism and intimidation, and ubiquitous fear of change, is itself a major event. Iraq's new basic law is easily the most liberal in the Arab world, guaranteeing religious freedom, political and economic rights, federalism, and decentralization. While the latter two provisions fueled most of the controversy between the country's three main religious groups given the ramifications for the distribution of oil revenues they were not enough to prevent ratification. These provisions are also unprecedented in a region that has historically seen rigid rule from central authorities. Similarly, the December elections for the National Assembly, declared to be generally in-line with global democratic norms by international observers, were notable for a number of progressive features, and not just by Middle Eastern standards. For example, one third of candidates from each party were required to be women, Iraqi expatriates were allowed to vote, and voting was conducted on the basis of a unique blend of regional and national representation. But perhaps the most meaningful element of these two votes was that they took place at all. After all, only three years earlier a very different Iraqi regime had orchestrated its own version of a national plebiscite, with the "official" numbers showing 100 percent of the votes by 100 percent of the registered voters cast in favor of continued rule by Saddam Hussein, whose trial on war crimes charges began just a few months ago. In other words, the very concept of democratic discourse must contend with a legacy of 30 years of despotism. To the west of Iraq lies Syria, where the regime of Bashar Assad is practicing much the same sort of secular, Baathist authoritarianism as in Saddam's Iraq. But a preliminary report from a United Nations commission investigating the assassination of a leading anti-Syrian politician in Lebanon has already done to Mr Assad's government what years of U.S. sanctions and European Union resolutions have not: put it firmly on the defensive. Syria had already been under intensified international pressure since September 2004, when the UN Security Council demanded the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. Both France and the U.S. have long opposed Syrian meddling in its smaller neighbor, but it took the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005 to catalyze the outrage, both domestic and international, that finally forced Syria out of Lebanon. Although many Lebanese suspected from the beginning that Syrian intelligence and security forces were behind this terrorist act, the strongly worded (at least in UN terms) report by chief investigator Detlev Mehlis gave official imprimatur to the conventional wisdom. The report concluded that senior Syrian officials, including close relatives of Mr Assad, along with their Lebanese associates, planned Mr Hariri's killing in order to silence a vocal opponent of Syria. In addition, the report sharply criticized Damascus for its lack of cooperation with the investigation. Earlier this month, the Security Council extended the investigation into the matter by another six months. It is unlikely that this report will have the same cathartic effect on the Syrian establishment that, say, Lord Hutton's inquiry spurred at the BBC in early 2004. Syria is clearly not the UK; the Assad regime is under no compulsion to give up power easily; and the Security Council is hardly in a position to do anything serious about it. Already Damascus has dismissed Mr Mehlis's findings as "political". Still, even though Assad & Co intend to keep their jobs, they may now think twice before overtly interfering in Lebanese affairs. Ironically, by shining a spotlight upon Syrian wrongdoing, the death of Mr Hariri helps ensure that the international community will stay committed to defending Lebanese sovereignty. Finally, 2005 marked a key point in the maturation of democracy in Turkey the decision in October by the European Union to formally open membership talks. Turkey, of course, differs from Iraq and Syria in that it has been relatively democratic since the creation of the republic after World War I. Still, some features of Turkish governance have historically not been up to Western European standards, and the process of accession to the EU is certain to provide a further catalyst to Turkey's ongoing reform agenda. Turkish membership in the EU would be the most complex enlargement in the union's history. By population, Turkey would be the second largest member today, and could overtake Germany by 2014, the target date for joining. Geographically, Turkey would extend the EU's borders to the heart of the volatile Middle East, including both Iraq and Syria. Economically, Turkey would be one of the poorest members, although not far from where Bulgaria and Romania, both of which are set to join in 2007, are today. For all these reasons, many current members, especially Germany and Austria, are feeling ambivalent about the prospect of Turkish membership. Under current rules, any EU member can halt Turkey's (or any other candidate's) negotiations at any time. These difficulties aside, the main strategic justification for Turkish EU membership is the goal of bringing this secular, stable, democratic Muslim country firmly into the community of the West. Accordingly, the start of membership talks entails two things. First, it is a reward for what Ankara has already done: abolished the death penalty, strictly enforced laws against torture, reduced the political influence of the nation's powerful military, and created new protections for minority (especially Kurdish) rights. Second, the EU has conveyed the message that more reforms, especially in the human rights area, will be needed before membership can become reality. In addition, Turkey will eventually have to recognize Cyprus, a current EU member, which would involve reaching a permanent settlement to the island's long-standing partition. Iraq, Syria and Turkey are by no means the only countries that exemplify the slow but steady trend towards democratization in the Middle East. Egypt held its first multi-candidate presidential elections in September. Kuwaiti women received the right to vote and stand for parliament in May. Even the absolute monarchy of Saudi Arabia is showing signs of modest change, with the recent establishment of a national consultative council. As compared to 1990 or even 2000, the region's political landscape may look very different indeed by 2010. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Know an art & music fan? Make a donation in their honor this holiday season! http://us.click.yahoo.com/.6dcNC/.VHMAA/Zx0JAA/uTGrlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> -- This is ZESTGlobal. Post articles on international affairs to [email protected] If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTGlobal by sending a blank mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTGlobal/join/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTGlobal/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
