Prof. Johan Malan, Mossel Bay, South Africa (March 2011)
The widespread turmoil in the Arab world has caused unprecedented political instability in North Africa and the Middle East and threatens to plunge the entire region into the troubled waters of anarchy. This turn of events was a big shock to most people who have started adapting to a political landscape characterised by moderate dictatorships, and a few radical ones too, which are obviously a cause for concern. It has already become apparent that a serious degree of social unrest, economic disruption and political volatility could follow upon the sudden breakdown of existing authority structures. Such changes are not evolutionary but revolutionary, and may inflict political and economic wounds that will take a very long time to heal.
The major questions that will be addressed in this series of articles are the following: What is the true nature of democracy? Did these revolts basically arise from discontentment with autocratic governments or were they deliberately precipitated by outside pressure for democratic reforms in the Middle East? What is the agenda of the reformers? What are the chances that their demands will be met? And finally: What will be the outcome of these revolts and pressures for reform? As far as future prospects are concerned, there are one or two really disturbing scenarios that may emerge from the present turmoil.
In this first article we will broadly review the origin and further development of democracy as a political philosophy, with particular reference to its consequences in African and the Middle Eastern societies.
As a point of departure we will concisely define the political concepts which are relevant to this article:
Tribes or chiefdoms are based upon the principle of ranking. That means that some of the clans in the tribe, as well as the individuals in them, have a higher or lower status than others. The whole society forms a hierarchical structure, with the chief occupying the pivotal position. Hereditary chiefs are the genealogically senior members of their respective royal clans. The administration of the tribe is conducted by the office-bearers who are appointed in accordance with their socio-political ranking. The principle of respect for authority is hereby established. In spite of the fact that tribal members have no choice in electing their leader, this system of governance does allow for public participation by way of the advice given by councillors and also the discussions allowed during open tribal meetings. Some leaders act more autocratic while others are open to the advice of their councillors and adult tribal members. In this way, tensions arising from dissatisfaction may be alleviated. In some traditional tribal societies, a number of tribes with their chiefs are politically ranked within a larger system headed by a paramount chief or king.
A kingdom or monarchy. Once widespread in the world, kingdoms are headed by a king or queen who is the senior member of a royal dynasty in a particular society, state or empire. In some cases a king is an authoritarian ruler, or tyrant, with absolute powers over his followers. In other cases, kings allow for political participation by power-sharing and the devolution of centralised power. This may be done by the institution of advisory councils, parliaments and even cabinet ministers whose duties are described in a constitution. Democratic reforms may develop to a point where the monarch is stripped of all legislative and executive powers, thereby relegating him or her to a mere figurehead (e.g. in die case of the UK). This is known as a constitutional monarchy where the king’s powers are determined by the constitution. Although the monarchy can continue to exist, effectively the country’s administration then is in the hands of a chosen parliament.
A dictator or tyrant is a domineering ruler with unrestricted authority. His power may be obtained by force (usually a military coup) or by inheritance within a royal family. He tends to follow a totalitarian style of government which extensively prescribes the lives of his subjects.
A dictatorship or authoritarian government is either controlled by one person, or a small group of people, who not only deprive their subjects of their freedom but also exploit them economically and keep them poor. A dictatorship under the control of a small, privileged group of nobles is also described as an aristocracy. They may obtain their position by virtue of their descent, wealth, education, social standing, military power or a combination of these factors.
Democracy is a system of government by the whole population, usually through elected representatives. Democracies are sensitive to individual human rights, freedom of association, freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and therefore tend to foster classless and tolerant societies. A free-market system and multi-party parliamentary system, based upon the right of all citizens of a certain age group to vote, are typical of modern democracies. The word “democracy” has been derived from the Greek word demokratia (demos=people and kratos=power) and therefore means “people power”.
The Wikipedia article, The history of democracy, says, among others:
“It is generally believed that the concepts of democracy and constitution were created in one particular place and time, identified as Ancient Athens circa 508 BC… Socrates was the first to raise the question, and further expanded by his pupil Plato, about what is the relation/position of an individual within a community. Aristotle continued the work of his teacher, Plato, and laid the foundations of political philosophy… Aristotle systematically analyzed the different systems of rule that the numerous Greek city-states had and categorized them into three categories based on how many ruled; the many (democracy/polity), the few (oligarchy/aristocracy), a single person (tyranny or today autocracy/monarchy). For Aristotle, the underlying principles of democracy are reflected in his work Politics: ‘A fundamental principle of the democratic form of constitution is liberty… One factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice… In democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign’.”
However, this form of democracy was repressed by die Hellenistic and Roman Empires, and restricted to matters of local interest. It only re-emerged since the 18th century, and thereafter played an increasing role in many parts of the world.
The historical decline of democracy was not only due to external powers but it was also questioned on practical grounds. It was, among others, described as “a system of rule where either the less well-born, the mob (as a collective tyrant) or the poorer classes, were holding power… It was only centuries afterwards… that the Athenian democracy started to be viewed positively by political thinkers. Over the last two decades scholars have re-examined the Athenian system of rule as a model of empowering citizens and a post-modern example for communities and organisations alike” (Hansen, M. H. 1992: “The Tradition of the Athenian Democracy A. D. 1750-1990”. Greece & Rome 39 (1): 14–30).
A fundamental weakness of the democratic system is apparent from the above quotation, particularly in multi-ethnic societies where there is not a strong sense of community and mutual respect, and also in less-developed societies where the levels of education and professional skills are low. Democracy may indeed in such cases, according to Hansen, become “a system of rule where either the less well-born, the mob (as a collective tyrant) or the poorer classes, [are] holding power.” This is a chilling fact. Another application of democracy that may be disturbing to thinking people is Hansen’s reference to its utility as an instrument to promote postmodern reforms in society. Such reforms often lead to disorderliness, ineffectual emphasis on moral principles, and poor government.
Postmodernism is a term which was quite recently coined to express the far-reaching changes that are occurring in the world since the last part of the 20th century. This concept has wide and often diverse applications in politics, philosophy, literature and religion. It is seen as a liberating movement to break away from the totalitarian structures and ideologies that were established during the modern era. Depending on which modern institutions are deconstructed and rejected postmodernism could, in different contexts, be experienced as post-colonial, post-apartheid, post-communist, or post-capitalist, and also post-Christian reforms. However, the notion of a new, postmodern order which is to supersede the old order is very ambiguous and may even lead to disorder and chaos in a society or state if it is not properly managed.
Postmodern reforms in Africa, and particularly postcolonial reforms, often lead to severe disappointment and devastating socio-economic and political consequences. A large number of former African colonies obtained independence during the second half of the 20th century, thereby entering the postcolonial stage of their development. But to most of them this was no utopia. A black academic of the Harvard University in the USA said the following in a paper:
“The postcolonial African state has been variously described as corrupt, neopatrimonial, personalistic, and kleptocratic. At present many African states are ruled by personal rulers or strongmen whose regimes are marked by excessive clientelism, despotism, and corruption. Rulers do not rely on the willing compliance of the citizenry; instead they buy allegiance from influential individuals and groups via patronage or rely on the use of force to coerce the citizenry into compliance. Political competition is neither tolerated nor encouraged and military coups rather than elections are the standard way in which power changes hands. Clientelism abounds and the state, rather than the private sector, is the primary arena for accumulation. Most African countries followed a course of centralisation and bureaucratic expansion in the first few years after independence which effectively excluded most social groups from participation in public affairs. The chaotic nature of political life has caused most civilians to lose faith in 'the system', disassociate themselves from the state, and consider the government their enemy” (Zine Magubane, Harvard Univ., “Colonisation and the state-society struggle in West Africa”, quoted by Malan, J.S., in Cultural Anthropology: An African Perspective. Univ. of Limpopo, RSA, 1998:87).
The history of democracy clearly suggests that this ideology and political system is only suited to fairly well-developed societies. Since the early 18th century the Western world (the so-called First World) entered a phase of substantial cultural, economic, educational and religious development, as well as major advances in the medical field. The great revivals of the 18th and 19th centuries gave rise to widespread interest in literacy programmes among people who wanted to read the Bible for themselves. This was to the benefit of education in general, which led to the more intensive exploring of different fields of knowledge. The number of schools, colleges and universities increased exponentially in Europe. Industrial and technological development expanded rapidly and created job opportunities for large numbers of people.
A widely-impacting renaissance of this nature produces natural leaders in all the different fields of public life. As new fields of knowledge are opened and diverse skills are developed, leaders emerge in all these fields. This calls for devolution of centralised power in order to allow the newly established interest groups to function according to their own principles and group dynamics, which demands reduced intervention from the government.
Reforms of this nature are the rationale for democratisation: education, particularly on a tertiary level, should be allowed to function independently without being forced to become a propaganda instrument for the state; the church should be allowed to fulfil its mission without government intervention; in the economic sphere, a free market system should be allowed to develop; and in the legal sphere an independent judiciary should be the ideal.
In a developed situation of this nature, leadership positions should be earned, in whatever field a person wishes to make his or her contribution to social upliftment. Leaders are not born, they are made, and this discounts the tradition of hereditary leadership in a royal family. A royal dynasty should ideally be replaced by a multi-party democracy which opens the way for the best people to be elected to government positions. A compromise between the two institutions is also possible, i.e. a constitutional monarchy, and is preferred by many nations.
What happens if democratic elections are imposed upon underdeveloped societies where there is not extensive cultural diversity which is needed for the development of natural leaders? In the absence of these conditions, so-called ‘liberation movements’ are formed with a view to seizing power in a country or a former colony. Their strength is not in the knowledge or professional skills of their members, but in their numbers or in the military power which they can successfully wield. Violent liberation struggles, military coups, intimidating mass actions, and public demonstrations are some of the methods which they resort to in trying to advance their cause.
These people are often poorly educated, unemployed or only employed at entry levels, and in various other ways regard themselves to be disadvantaged by the state. They may also represent an ethnic majority, and then evade the question of political competency by relying on their large numbers. The positive international climate towards majority rule is then exploited by them to enforce democratic elections in their country.
Once they achieve their goal and become the new ruling party, they almost invariably fare much worse than the previous oppressive regime. Apart from a scarcity of competent leaders and officials in their ranks, they also find it impossible to fulfil their election promises. In most cases they promise jobs, houses and good salaries to all their supporters. This being impossible to realise, the newly appointed leaders soon perceive that they are sitting on an explosive tinder-box. Various options are then considered by them, e.g. compromises with opponents, autocratic rule, coercion by military means or police, as well as other ways of intimidating or bribing the population.
Unsteady political leaders also become corrupt and try to excessively enrich themselves while they have the opportunity. They transform the government into a kleptocracy in which the stealing of public funds and other assets becomes the order of the day on all levels of government. This situation severely undermines trust and is a breeding-ground for demonstrations, strikes, violent actions, and even civil wars. Out of fear for reprisals they cling to power and even commit blatant election fraud to retain their positions a while longer.
In view of the basic conditions needed to make a democratic system work properly, it is utterly absurd to impose changes of this nature on underdeveloped societies. It is tantamount to taking a Grade 6 pupil and promoting him overnight to the position of headmaster of a secondary school. It simply cannot work.
The US has followed this approach in various countries and failed miserably. Their most intensive and most costly experiment was in Iraq. A dictatorship in Iraq was replaced by a democratic government which is totally incapable of overcoming the underdevelopment, lack of knowledge and skills, sectarian violence, and serious religious differences between Sunnis and Shiites. If fact, the bloodshed, uncertainty, and human suffering in the post-Saddam era is much worse than before. The corruption and poor performance of the present government are sure signs of further deterioration towards total collapse.
The Americans soon forgot their failed effort in the former South Vietnam, when they declared themselves victors and withdrew their armed forces. They repeated this approach in Iraq but this time the cost was astronomical and accounts for the near-destruction of the American economy. But still they pursue the very same solution to political problems everywhere – democratise or die! It was a naive dream on their part to expect that they would soon present Iraq to all the Arab states as an example of excellence due to democratic reforms.
Despite these failures their obsession with democracy as the only workable political solution has not abated – as has currently been proven in Egypt. Instead of trying to preserve the moderate dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak by timeously influencing him to share power and step down in favour of a more acceptable successor in his own party, the US waited until the opposition against his rule had built up to explosive levels. Only then did they urge him to step down immediately, thereby burning the bridge towards a more viable solution in Egyptian politics. Who will be the next pharaoh?
The US openly took sides with the protesters in Egypt, among whom are the many supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. Will they promote American interests in the Middle East if they come to power, and will they honour the previous regime’s peace treaty with Israel? This is a dangerous gamble.
It is obviously not an easy task for other countries to determine foreign policy for the Middle East, particularly for countries such as Libya. With the advantage of hindsight we now know that Gaddafi should long ago have been checked by the Arab League, the US, the UN and all other stakeholders. Leaving him in power for more than 40 years was a recipe for disaster. By openly supporting the revolutionary actions of the protesters now, results in complicity in the economic ruin of an important oil-producing state. Thousands of people from various countries have lost their jobs, and it will take Libya many years to recover.
When considering who is to be blamed for what happened in Libya, Egypt and many other countries, one should single out the Arab League as the most important body. But there is also the influence of the electronic media, and specifically the Qatar-based Aljazeera TV network in Arab and English that played a big role. They are so strongly committed to democratic reforms that they never referred to the people involved with the riots in Egypt and Libya as anti-government protesters, but as pro-democracy demonstrators. The actions of the demonstrators were (and still are) unconditionally condoned and hailed as a noble expression of their drive for freedom and basic human rights. The inevitable anarchy is not condemned, neither is consideration given to political solutions other than American-style social engineering.
Dissidents in many other countries have certainly taken note of the success achieved by rebels in the Middle East, and also of the overwhelming support that was given by the international community to violent methods of political change. The chances are good that these very same methods and public pressure for change will soon spread to various other countries of the world.
A discussion on democracy in the Arab world will not be complete without considering the views of Muslim clerics – both moderate and radical. The commitment of Arab states to the Islamic faith is unwavering, although not all of them favour fundamentalist reforms like those in Iran. Nevertheless, they mostly have high regard for their royal families that are reputedly descended from the prophet Muhammad. The ruling emirs and kings, together with the clerics, are seen as the custodians of Muslim society.
This hierarchical structure in their societies is only conducive to monarchies and aristocracies – not to a truly democratic form of rule. Islamic Shariah law is honoured with different degrees of strictness. Those clerics who insist on full and absolute subjection to Shariah, invariably have a global objective for its worldwide enforcement. According to them, Islam is a world religion and they demand compliance by all nations. They have engaged in a global jihad to further their cause, and often threaten nations and rulers who dare to fight against Islam.
WorldNetDaily of 2.28.2011 published an article under the heading: Global Jihad – Obama to face Sharia Court? Anjem Choudary, founder and former chief of two Islamic groups disbanded by the British authorities under anti-terror legislation, is planning a Washington protest in which he says he will call on American Muslims to revolt against the country and implement Shariah law. Speaking in an interview with investigative reporter Aaron Klein, Choudary claimed Obama was waging a war against Islam:
“He has promised all Muslims to be released from Guantanamo Bay. They are still languishing there even though he knows they are completely innocent. On top of that, he has increased the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, so he is a warmonger just as his predecessor was. And thirdly and more importantly, the Muslims don’t want democracy and freedom. Democracy and freedom are anathema to Islam and the Shariah.” Choudary said he will call on Obama and all Americans to “embrace Islam, not only as a religion but as a way of life.”
Choudary’s statement that “democracy and freedom are anathema to Islam” reflects a quite common opinion among contemporary Islamic elite, but not so among the poor people and emerging middle class. The latter group do not enjoy the lucrative lifestyles of the royal families and rich aristocracy and want to see the abolition of the traditional hierarchy by way of democratic reforms, so that all people can equally share in the privileges and wealth of the state. But otherwise they remain quite committed to Islam as a religion.
This ideological crisis is very much an internal problem for Islamic societies to solve among themselves. The wealth brought about by oil exports, as well as the subsequent economic development, and also the influence of modern communication, has offered people a lifestyle different to what they were used to. How much of their own traditions they wish to preserve is for them to decide. It is, of course, always difficult for the privileged class to yield to the demands of the less privileged majority, and that is why they don’t give up without a fight.
The oil-producing Arab states became too wealthy too soon, without really working for it. Their financial wealth far outstripped the social, educational, economic and political development of their societies. They also lagged behind in the area of sport. Being not really competitive in a modern world, they found it more convenient to import thousands of foreign companies, workers and professionals to build and maintain Arab cities, facilities and services that can compete with the best in the world – and even surpass the best.
This is where the problems of Arab nations started. Instead of following the slow and difficult way of developing and training their own people to be able to enjoy and manage the major share of their riches, this enormous wealth was appropriated by a small elite group of Arab leaders. They are spending the money with the assistance of foreign experts to propel themselves and their cities to the forefront of the technological age. In this way they hope to draw the rich of the world to invest in their countries, and also to stay there. The customers of their shopping malls are also predominantly foreigners. If political revolt, religious demonstrations and anarchy should scare away these foreigners, some Arab nations will be the owners of the biggest and most expensive ghost cities in the world.
An aristocracy developed in these nations, in which royal families were joined by a select group of wealthy people who are in control of their national assets. The majority of the population are not properly and intensively trained, which results in a big underdeveloped sector of society which cannot yield natural leaders of a high standing.
When democratic reforms are imposed on such societies, the power is usually shifted to religious pressure groups, trade unions or violent liberation movements. Under such circumstances it will not be the most knowledgeable people who take over the government, but the most powerful and the most influential groups. Their power and influence are mostly based on their sheer numbers, revolutionary fervour or religious affiliation. Religious inspired radicalism is very common in the Arab world. It is difficult if not impossible to transform such groups into effective and constructive political parties.
There is no easy solution to the present unrest in the Middle East. Merely casting a vote in a polling station in order to ensure the honouring of basic human rights will not even remotely solve this complex problem.
To be continued on www.bibleguidance.co.za