DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
Religion and democracy are as old as man itself. Many systems of administrations or system of governments derived their theories of governance from their religion or from a religious orientation and experience. The social contract theory expounded by Thomas Hobbes that the citizens by contract gave their power to the authority called the government could be likened to the biblical days when the Israelites wanted to be governed by a king and Samuel was asked to choose a king for the Israelites. This can be the skeletal beginning of human democratic governance. In the biblical days kings are ordained by God and if the king obeyed God’d commandments he will definitely have a peaceful reign in his lifetime. Even if his reign will be tumultuous he definitely will overcome all challenges posed to him by the enemy either from a fellow kingdom or within his empire.
When it comes to the middle east, the system of governance is religious the reason to attack a fellow empire or kingdom is religious. Like a Jihad- a holy war fighting the pagans with the need to make them accept Islam as the true religion. There are ten paramount countries in the middle east with though similar but different system of governance. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Isreal, Turkey, Syria, Beirut, Iran, Palestine. Egypt before the Arab spring Hosni Mubarak ruled the country for many years committing different atrocities without the
Control by the people revolted and had their first democratic election which brought about the first elected President of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi. Mohammed Morsi came from the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt. The brotherhood supported him as he made lopsided decisions in favour of the brotherhood though against the Christians. The Christians are the minority in Egypt, though, but the lopsided decisions of Morsi had started to divide the once united Egypt that ousted the Hosni Mubarak. With this unfolding event in Egypt I asked myself, did the people of Egypt desire authoritarian rule like that of Mubarak? Now I will say because if they do, they will not have uniformly ousted him during the Arab spring. However, the selfish nature of man that man is selfish, nasty and brutish in nature was activated when the people of Egypt were asked to vote and elect their president. It is either some groups in Egypt were not ready for practical democracy or they want to selfishly democratize the land. One thing that is clear, however, is that the people of Egypt were tired of authoritarian rule they wanted democracy but what type of democracy do they want?
In Syria, Bashir al - Assad became president and commander- in-chief of Syria with the death of his father Hafiz al – Assad. The system of governance in Syria is a semi presidential system wherein power lies in the hands of the president of Syria and his family. As members of the ruling Arab socialist Baath party they for many years dominated the government of Syria until the spread of the Arab spring, which has made Syria a war torn state recently with the protesters agitation and
Becoming a rebel group. One thing is clear the people are tired of authoritarian rule they wanted democracy they wanted to have a say in their country. How will they have this say and what type of democracy do they want. Sitting at the round table has been so difficult with the U.S AND Russia disagreeing over the inclusion of some rebel groups counting them as terrorist. Saudi Arabia has also made his opinion known through the Riyadh conference that to solve the problem of Syria will be to the exclusion of Bashir Al – Assad. It seems the people want a change in Syria they want a permanent change of the Assad Family in power.
Why was it that the Arab spring did not affect Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Isreal, Turkey and Iran. Concerning Saudi Arabia the people are reasonably contented the money made from oil and tourism and their patriotic, religious beliefs and stiff penalties on offenders has indeed maintained a decent society in Saudi. Recently the inclusion of women to vote and be voted for shows the acceptance of flexibility of Islamic law and the trend in the modern society. This is not a sign of weakness from the Saudi Authority as many will believe, but acceptance of cultural change in modern society which will inevitably happen either by the people through force or acceptance by the government.
Jordan on his own has a system of administration called constitutional Monarchy. King Abdullah 11 Bin Hussein is the head of state and
Commander in chief. He exercises executive authority through the Prime minister. It has a bicameral legislature or national Assembly wherein people are elected into office at the end of their term. The system of administration in Jordan seems democratic enough not to be affected by the Arab spring at the time.
It is important to state, however, that the world is becoming an influence in the middle east, especially now that the world is a global village. No matter the system adopted by any government once the basic needs are provided and the government in power is able to fine tune itself to the need of the people such a government cannot or will not be toppled easily. President Erdogan of Turkey is still able to stand, though still rocking the boat in Turkey, yet, he is still able to stand because of the democratic system entrenched in the country giving the people hope of having the power to remove him if need be. Iran on the other hand, seems to be doing what his citizen desire or maybe their propaganda was good in fights America and portraying the U.S as their enemy and not the government especially the sanctions meted out to them by the United Nations. The stability of Iran is only a matter of time.
Democracy is not the problem in the middle East. The problem is what type of democracy in the middle East? How can democracy be introduced in the middle East? What process of Democracy is
Applicable in the Middle East? Which will depend on the level of exposure of each country.
To avoid crisis like that of Syria and some other parts of the middle East, the government need to understand the desire of their people and their evolutionary minds in line with their religious beliefs in tandem with certain disciplinary measures to curtail excesses and maintain religious culture.
Comments