Possible reasons for the absence of 'democracy' in post-colonial Middle East.
______________________________________________________________________________
“Ten years from now, twenty years from now, you will
see: oil will bring us ruin … Oil is the Devil’s excrement”. Former Venezuelan
Oil Minister and OPEC co-founder Juan Pablo Perez Alfonzo
The puzzling mosaic of the Middle East’s political
framework has emerged from a challenging range of historic international
influences and strategic elitist transactions. The current state system in the
region is the remnant of what was wedged in place by colonialism and is
laboring to redefine itself. The modern struggle to justify new forms of self
governance and the surge in aims to realize self determination are directly
related to the multi faceted and aging consequences of these influences and
transactions.
At the turn of the last century, the geo-politics of
the Middle East was a key element in the necessity to control the region. From
an economic perspective at the time, the Ottoman Empire was in decline and the
need for oil to fuel wars, and indeed the growing industrialization and
urbanization of Europe, was a significant concern. Agreement on trade routes,
pipeline crossings, transit fees, and access to the Persian Gulf resonated
through international relations and accords. Just as Russian influence around
the Caspian Sea and the development of the Railway line to Baghdad contributed
to diplomatic engagement and the relationships between the Arab states with
their neighbours and Europe.
The Sykes Picot Agreement and subsequent Treaty of
Versailles effected the carve up of the Middle East region, and the creation of
a map of artificial mosaic States, which each faced multiple challenges to the
fabric of their social order as they re-defined the dynamics of relationships
with their colonizing draftsmen. Fluid demographic boundaries within the
territories meant that diversity of language, ethnicity, culture and religious
dimensions compounded fragmentation. The colonial dogma of ‘divide and rule’
had succeeded in creating a melting pot which struggled to define itself as
there were no common frameworks within each community from which to garner
loyalty to emerging hierarchies.
Whether what can be regarded as the Western narrow,
monolithic, understanding of the Middle East, is a contributing element in how
we interact with them or contra-versely whether this is an influence upon them
in how they deal with us, it is certainly an element in socio-economic and
political relations between the West and Middle East. Typically, self-portrayed
as superior colonists; the European reductionist opinion of the region was
translated into a desire to govern and dominate the area.
Through the original lens of Social Darwinism and
the British labeling system, this arcane voyeuristic view has infused a long
history of fearful, negative representations of the unfamiliar and dangerous
Muslim world in the West. As a result, this ignorance in turn contributed to a
guarded and suspicious response, and the inevitability of complicated
diplomatic and economic interaction.
The persistent opposition and regional resistance to
European occupation, (most notably Britain in Egypt and Palestine, and France
in Algeria, Syria and Morocco), through the following decades, and the multiple
revolts against Imperialism, eventually succeeded in effecting a gradual
relinquishing of control and decline of many layers of colonial influence from
the end of WWII and into the 1960s throughout much of the region.
Mandates and protectorates were used as agencies in
order to maintain strong economic influences for natural resources and trade in
the region. However it was necessary to appoint administrations which were sure
to protect the interests of the holder of the mandate and who could be trusted
to repress internal opposition or civil unrest. This form of absentee rule has
proved significantly successful with the authoritarian and single party regimes
who administered the region since the end of the Cold War.
Throughout the history of the last century economic
interests were secured though oil prospecting concession grants, as in the
cases of Lord Curzon and Baron de Reuter, and through payoffs, such as the
annual gratuity paid by the British to the warlord Ibn Al Saud who signed an agreement
with them in 1915 to encourage compliance and prevent his vision of expansion
into other territories of imperial interest. Incidentally after 1924 when Al
Saud went to war with the Kingdom of Hijaz, he was permitted free reign to
hammer out his own Kingdom, which the British ignored as they naively saw
nothing of value in the interior.
Administrative supremacy in the Middle East region
is largely distributed between single party regimes or ruling families of
monarchs, descended from imported ruling Tribes and their hierarchy of Sheikhs
or Emirs. Parliamentary participation depends on ones kindred relationship to a
monarch or regime architect. These prominent, and well financed, individuals were
originally tame and corrupt ‘placemen’ put in power by Britain or France, who
did nothing to challenge the dominance of Imperial control but who formally did
the bidding of neo-colonialist rule.
They now justify their positions of authority by
merit of their historic family virtues of noble lineage, claims of descent from
the prophet, or by gaining personal recognition for honored military deeds and
tribute for leadership qualities. These elements of buttressing the
genealogical records are significant in answering the question of how notorious
regimes have survived so tenaciously for generations.
The countries these entrenched regional monarchies govern
are akin to ‘acquisitions of property’ bequeathed to them by the colonists, and
the populations are merely occupants with whom there is no duty to enter into
any form of social contract. The democratic problem of mutual dependence is
eradicated by the use of resource income as a ransom of pacifying deterrence. Over
half of the revenues generated by the governments in the Persian Gulf and
surrounding states have come from the sale of oil.
Lingering regime control has broadly embittered the
people of the region who are not associated with the ruling class themselves.
As the recipients of large amounts of money in payment for oil and resource
extraction, and access through territories for transportation, the governments
build wealth for their own purposes without having direct responsibility to the
community who experience a far lower standard of living and no access to
authority.
Civilian political interest is controlled and
opposition party formation is suppressed through a range of both
aggressive-authoritarian and passive-coercive methods so that the ability to
form cohesive opposition and an audible voice for change is obstructed.
On the one hand, because oil wealth yields
incredibly lucrative budgetary contributions in the Middle East region; social
patronage of public services, health care systems, and basic education, has
heretofore been translated into diminished pressure for democracy and urgent aspirations
of political participation. In the event of a strong resource economy, the campaign
for democratic engagement is weakened from both perspectives, governments have
no need to promote economic expansion and there is no vibrant labour market required
to support the extraction of the resource, so there is no opportunity to create
grounds for social bargaining around policy and accord.
The formation of opposition political parties and
independent social groups is deterred through conduits such as student
scholarship and grant schemes, state sponsored and co-opted or controlled
women’s groups, trade unions, medical and legal bodies, and religious
organisations, where the boards of directors or committees are regime
appointed, which implies a lack of credibility within the community but
satisfies international images of progressive modernity.
Modernisation is not necessarily an element of
change that works though the state, but through exposure to media influences, a
rise in education and indeed access to international education and personal
contact with or interaction with western ideology. Of greatest importance is
education which produces awareness of strategies to communicate, inform and
mobilize and to articulate observances, grievances and solutions.
Education also arms the populace by empowering them
and transforming them from what has been typically known as a weak industrial
class into a ‘work-force’ thus equipping them with ‘value of self’ in the form
of labour as a commodity that can be used to negotiate with the establishment,
and in turn appropriates influence and access to power.
The rise of the popular Arab Nationalist movement in
1952 saw a revolutionary social change. The people opposed the monarchies and
declared sovereignty, striving for an independent Arab State ideal of unity,
liberty and socialism. Although the movement was short lived and quickly
crushed, it planted seeds of popular protest and ambitions for change that have
resonated periodically through the decades since.
Current international political opinion and methods
continue to cause alarm both amongst those living in the region and concerned
individuals and NGOs who are on the outside looking in. There are inconsistencies
in foreign policy in how interventions are exercised, most notably with Britain,
the United States and France, which are a source of concern as although they
remain manifestly self serving, they are unpredictable in their approach, which
can have brutal consequences, such as the current contrasting policies
surrounding interventions in Libya, Yemen and Syria.
While the United States campaigns against countries
selling arms to Syria and lobbies for embargos against her, they are at the
same time seeking to sell weapons to the Bahraini regime who are engaged in a
vicious crackdown on their own opposition protestors. There is an element of
serial interventionism in the Middle East by powers outside of the region,
which serve only to undo populist regimes that may threaten Western interest
and inevitably result in a redistribution of oil rights.
In Western society governments tax the populace, who
have then theoretically ‘bought’ themselves the right to question authority and
expect the benefit of a competent and considerate government. This social
contract between the rulers and the ruled is well established and taken for
granted in a democratic system.
In a Rentier system which depends on oil rent income
or payments for territorial access to a countries natural resources, there is
no tax liability for ‘tenants’ and they have no ‘right’ to question either what
the government is doing with the income, how it is spent, or to have any say in
how the country is administrated. In other words, they are not entitled to
political participation and there is no access to democratic decision making as
this dilutes the autonomous power of the regime.
Regime supporters would be suspicious that a civil
service would pose a threat to their power as they are likely to be held
accountable for their activities and spending, and if resource wealth were
dispersed in a more socially balanced manner the sliver of pie afforded to
national interest would certainly be exposed in the broader context as national
abuse, the impact of which would be devastating.
Even in an instance of concession to constitutional
monarchy in regime states, the vision for political plurality must be decreed
by the King or national leader, which in itself reinforces top down politics
and insults the principles of democracy and plurality, demanding
acknowledgement of the primacy of the monarch and serving superficially to
appear progressive while there is no actual power transfer or hegemonous challenge.
One of the emerging grievances of communities
currently struggling for self determination against dictatorial regimes in the
Middle East is the extent that the governments go to in order to influence, control
and gag the media. State run television channels, newspapers, radio stations and
even social media are each manipulated to reflect the benevolence and fairness
of the regime and its economic and diplomatic partners to its own people,
emerging technologies, new business ventures and arguably, most disingenuously,
its involvement in ‘humanitarian relief projects’.
The forceful removal and detention of opposition
leaders, human rights defenders, journalists, photographers, poets,
cartoonists, artists, bloggers, and social media activists, as threats to the
regime; severely impacts freedom of speech and the accurate flow of information
into the international forum. There are rigorous and collaborative efforts to
attack the integrity of these social contributors and to besmirch their
reputations.
Most sinister is the kidnapping, detention, torture
and sentencing in military court of Doctors and Medics who treated casualties
injured in the crackdown against protestors in Bahrain earlier this year. As
the first witnesses to regime brutality, and having been filmed by
international television networks during the chaos at Salmaniya Medical
Complex, they were accused of criminal and felonious charges and formidable efforts
have been made to silence them.
The contemporary weapon of words has changed the
dynamic of ‘war’ and how civilians are battling with their governments
regarding their grievances, and this is having startling consequences. The
crackdowns in Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen and most recently elements creeping
into Saudi and Kuwait, are being reported by independent ‘civilian
journalists’, whose prolific exploitation of twitter, Facebook and YouTube are
giving voice to atrocities perpetrated against them and their resolute
determination to force positive change in how they are governed. The
characteristic tools of age-old propaganda have been inverted to become tools
of revolution.
With the wealth of a nation, comes the necessity to
protect it. Equilibrium must be maintained in order not to upset the status quo,
which is in a constant state of flux in the Middle East, given the nature of
minority rule and sectarian issues between Sunni and Sh’ia ruling and ruled
classes, and the potential for regional proxy wars between the Arab super
powers of Iran and Saudi Arabia.
In the case of Bahrain for example, civil unrest has 'necessitated' the artificial rebalancing of citizenship which has been achieved
by the regime importing non-national Sunnis from neighboring states and
providing them with national status to complement the Bahraini Sunni minority.
The economic implications of this demographical fabrication are felt most
keenly by Sh’ia Baharna who were expelled from colleges or fired from their
jobs during measures to crush opposition dissent. Their positions have been
appropriated by these new ‘nationals’, many of whom do not have the
qualifications of the individuals that they have displaced.
There are efforts on the part of the ruling class in
each state to create sectarian division between communities who have traditionally
cohabited in peace, in order to emulate the divide and conquer doctrine of
their colonial fathers. Religion is universally exploited as a mechanism for
division and there are arguments that the influence of Islam is
anti-democratic, but noticeably politics and religion are largely separated in
Muslim history. Nonetheless, although the mosque is used as a forum for
grievance, so too is the church in the West. The rhetoric of opposition is
certainly often religious in nature, but it too is no more so than the
equivalent Christian rhetoric of Western society. Although many countries in
the West export democracy as part of their foreign policy, so too The Muslim Brotherhood actively support
respect for human rights, freedom of the press, independent judiciary and
democratic principles.
Even more ominous than demographic doctoring, and
fabricated sectarianism, is the importation of thousands of foreign militia
from Saudi Arabia and other neighboring states, who police the country and
terrorise the citizens, crushing all displays of public protest and forcing
submission to the regime. This is common in each of the countries where
opposition is displayed and is a familiar tactic of repression employed by
governments whose own army and police forces are unwilling to mete out
malicious subjugation on their fellow citizens. These soldiers of fortune are
recipients of the favours of the monarch who pays for their services and
allegiance using oil as currency.
Perhaps most damningly, it is suggested that the
tightly gripped control that authoritarian regimes wield in the Middle East, is
in reality far more fragile than they could ever admit. Because they pay for
their might, the experience of institutional frameworks and cohesive working
partnership is simply not there to support them. They lack true power in that
they do not possess the institutional agency required to organise and influence
society by bureaucratic, and as a consequence, democratic means.
Upon reflection, the greatest asset in the Middle
East is no longer its oil and resources, but the virulent and powerful Youth
Movement, young men and women, who have educated themselves and who see past
the clutching claws of crumbling despots, who will not be silent witnesses to
unjust dictatorships and who are empowering and already self determining
themselves as masters of their own destinies and the authors of their future.
Tara O'Grady, 2012
