The Problem With Coercive Democratization

The Bush Administration’s new policy initiative to advance democratic reform in the Arab world, formally announced by the President in a November 6, 2003 speech at the National Endowment for Democracy, and subsequently elaborated in the “Greater Middle East Initiative”, a plan drafted by American policy-makers for discussion at the G-8 summit scheduled for the following June in Savannah, Georgia, has triggered a firestorm of criticism from leaders of the region’s mainstream, non-violent Islamist opposition groups. Yet the Islamist reaction to the U.S. democracy initiative is more complex than it might first appear. Islamist leaders do not reject the principle of democratic reform per se; on the contrary, in their official programs and public statements, they claim to be among its staunchest advocates. What such leaders object to is not so much the content of the U.S. reform initiative as the ulterior motives alleged to lie behind it. In particular, Islamist leaders view the American democratic reform initiative as an effort to consolidate U.S.-Israeli hegemony in the region, both by engineering the rise of pliant, pro-U.S. regimes and by spreading Western secular and liberal values at the expense of Arab-Islamic identity and culture.

In a rare display of solidarity, Islamist and secular nationalist opposition leaders have joined forces with governments officials to denounce the U.S. democracy initiative as a blatant case of foreign intervention into the affairs of sovereign Arab states. Hence, for example, referring to the U.S. initiative at a press conference this spring, Muhmmad Mahdi ‘Akef, the Supreme Guide of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood declared: “The Muslim Brotherhood rejects all shapes of foreign hegemony , and denounces foreign interference into the affairs of Egypt or any other Arab or Islamic country”. [

We see that America is continuing in its policy of supporting authoritarian regimes. Musharraf in Pakistan is one of America’s greatest allies, and he is a military dictator. All the dictatorial regimes in the Arab world could not survive without American support. America gave chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein which he used in Halabja; Saddam did this [launched a campaign of genocide against the Kurds] when he was America’s friend… How can we be convinced of the democratic reform promoted by Bush. At the same time he is asking dictatorial regimes to tighten their controls of Islamists, shut down their charitable organizations… We don’t have any confidence in this reform discourse. The U.S. devoted 80 billion dollars for the war in Iraq, and has allocated 17 million dollars for the democratic initiative. What is the ratio there. It is just propaganda, to improve the image of America, reduce the enmity people feel toward America. The truth is that America seeks total hegemonic control of the region – this is proven by the facts on the ground. There are 150,000 American soldiers in Iraq; the Arab seas are occupied by American warships; American military forces are present in Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and now in Morocco and possibly even Libya… America doesn’t extend its hand in friendship; it asserts itself through guns, weapons, and killing. What is the real goal of the U.S. plan for political reform. First, to help America gain control of our oil; second, to re-draw the political map in a way that serves the Zionist entity; and third, to contain movements of change and resistance, at the head of which are the Islamists. [

America is calling for reform. But would America be happy with the results of free and clean elections. No, they would not be happy. They want the results they want. A recent public opinion survey in Jordan indicated that 99% of the people hate America. If there were truly free elections, the result would be a parliament that hated America. What the U.S. wants is democracy according to American standards (bil-maqayis al-amrikiya). [This is what the Arab people think. Real democracy will hurt American interests. Any real reforms will work against Israel and America.” [Will America permit freedom for everyone, or only support certain groups which agree with her policy. That is the key question.” [thawabet (enduring principles) of Islam and the conservative social norms of most people in the Arab world. When leaders of the main Islamist opposition groups in Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait endorse democracy, they define it strictly as a set of procedural mechanisms for selecting leaders and making laws. The crucial implication here is that the procedures of democracy can be separated from the philosophies of secularism, materialism and individualism with which they are associated in the West. As ‘Esam al-‘Aryan, a leader in the Egyptian Brotherhood put it,

Democracy is a way of managing political affairs. It doesn’t deal with the culture of society or its moral judgements (ahkamu). We are for a different form of democracy. We believe in democratic institutions like a written constitution, political parties, the separation of powers, and popular sovereignty. The main difference [with the democratic systems of the West] is the frame of reference (marja’iyya). The West advocates liberalism with no limits. We have our own values, and the Shari’a sets the upper ceiling which one cannot exceed. This is the culture of most of the people. [to restructure Egyptian and Islamic values and traditions in an American way”; indeed, the sending of Egyptian teachers to the U.S. for training, covered by the grant, was intended to achieve the “Americanization” of the Egyptian education system. Likewise, ‘Ali Laban, a Muslim Brotherhood MP, called the education grant one of many aimed at “poisoning the minds of the Egyptian people” and Mohamed El-Azabawi, another Brotherhood MP, said the grant was offered not because “American had suddenly fallen in love with us, but rather because they want to make sure that the coming generations are more loyal to them than to Islamic values.” [touching on school curricula in line with the directives of the U.S. administration will have negative results” and cautioned the government against deleting Quranic verses that call on Muslims to join in jihad and that “uncover the reality and schemes of the Jews and define the way they should be dealt with.” [we understand that the Zionist entity has seized the land of Palestine and this document calls for a mixing of cultures in the region. And we would say how could this be as they have occupied this land. We see this as definitely a contradiction to the teachings of Islam”. [a cessation of the pressures being exercised by the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. State Department on Kuwaiti domestic affairs”. [

We accept 99% of the framework of democracy and you keep pushing us to accept the bad 1%! Americans are promoting homosexuality, free sex, things which go to the very roots of human society and are not even accepted by everyone in America. And they want us to start with it. For God’s sake, what are you trying to do to us. [

You want me to be exactly like you. If I try to do this, I will end up a disfigured human being. I won’t know how to be like you and remain myself. You are Western, you have your own culture, your own history. I am Middle Eastern. I don’t ask you to become Egyptian. This is the richness of human society, and we should respect each other.

While an overwhelming majority of Islamists oppose the U.S. democracy initiative, several Islamist leaders concede that they might benefit from it. As ‘Esam Sultan of the Egyptian Wasat party explained, “U.S. efforts to impose democratic reform are not good, but they can have positive effects”. In particular, external calls for democratic reform are likely to increase the pressure on local Arab governments to open up their political systems, opening the door to a greater role for Islamist opposition groups. [Respect our religion and our culture and don’t interfere in our domestic affairs. Leave us alone and we can solve our own problems. We can build our own democracy by our own efforts, we don’t need your help. This is our task, not yours.” [

I met with some representatives from the American Embassy a few years ago. I said, I am going to be very candid with you. We aren’t afraid of you, and we don’t ask anything of you. I asked them, why do you intervene in our domestic affairs. [

Leave, or be just. The United States is now the only superpower, it will rule the world. But in that case, it should act according to its own principles – i.e. of freedom, pluralism and human rights. The U.S. should not apply those standards to Arab governments, while at the same time it protects the Sharon Administration in Israel. [ Carrie Rosefsky Wickham is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Emory University, cwickha@emory.edu

Source: Muslim World Journal of Human Rights Volume 1,Issue 1 2004, Article 6,produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press(bepress).

[1] Al Husseini, Hamdy, “Muslim Brotherhood Submits Own Initiative for Reform”, Islam On-Line, March 4, 2004. Akef made this remark at a Brotherhood press conference in Cairo on March 4, 2004, in which he outlined the Brotherhood’s own reform agenda.

[2] See Ottoway, Marina, “Promoting Democracy in the Middle East: The Problem of U.S.
Credibility”, Middle East Series, Democracy and Rule of Law Project, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, no. 35, March 2003.

[3] As Mubarak al-Duwaileh, who served as an MP of the Islamic Constitutional Movement from 1985-2003, put it, “America claims to want democracy, but she has Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. The source of this pressure has no credibility at all.”

[4] Interview with the author, July 8, 2004.

[5] Interview with the author, June 29, 2004, Amman.

[6] Interview with the author, June 30, 2004, Amman.

[7] Interview with the author, March 14, 2004.

[8] Interview with the author, March 16, 2004, Cairo.

[9] El-Din, Gamal Essam,”A Question of Motives”, Al-Ahram Weekly, June 19-25, 2003.

[10] “Islamists Shun Religious Program Altering”, UPI, January 5, 2004, Amman; “Jordan’s Islamic Front Says Planned Human Rights Lessons ‘Contradict Islam’”; Al-Ra’i, January 3, 2004.

[11] Gavlak, Dale, “Hard-Line Islamists Resist Human Rights Reforms in Jordan”, Religion News Service, January 22, 2004.

[12] “Kuwaiti deputy Criticizes US Embassy ‘Interference’ in Domestic Affairs”, Quds Press News Agency, London, June 5, 2004.

[13] Interview with the author, March 18, 2004. Similar arguments were made by two senior Brotherhood leaders, ‘Esam al-‘Aryan and ‘Abd al-Mun’em Abu-l-Futuh, following their participation in a March, 2004 seminar in Amman on Islam and Elections co-sponsored by Majles al-Hassan, Dialogues and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. As ‘Abd al-Mun’em Abu-l-Futuh explained, “the Carnegie delegation wanted us to accept all the provisions of global human rights documents. We agree with most points, but disagree on a few issues. Why do American analysts always focus on the few points of disagreement rather than on the 90% on which we agree.” Interview with the author, March 14, 2004.

[14] Interview with the author, March 8, 2004, Cairo. Mubarak al-Duwailah, a leader in the Islamic Constitutional Movement in Kuwait, made a similar argument.

[15] Comments from a group interview with Muhammad Mahdi ‘Akef, ‘Abd al-Mun’em Abu-l-Futuh and ‘Esam al-‘Aryan at the Muslim Brotherhood’s headquarters, March 16, Cairo.

[16] Interview with the author, July 1, 2004, Amman.

[17] Interview with the author, March 14, 2004, Cairo.