US press and democracy in the Middle East

by William Fisher

Monday, March 14th 2005

American media struggled last week to make sense of the stirrings of democracy in the Middle East. The pro-Bush neoconservative camp credited the president's aggressive "regime change" policies for creating the ripple effect felt not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia and even Syria. The "realist" school of foreign affairs pushed the idea that Middle East change started long before George W. Bush came to the White House. Other journalists adopted a "wait and see" position.

Op-ed columnist Jackson Diehl, writing in The Washington Post, said: "As thousands of Arabs demonstrated for freedom and democracy in Beirut and Cairo last week, it was hard not to wonder whether the regional transformation that the Bush administration hoped would be touched off by its invasion of Iraq is, however tentatively, beginning to happen."

Neoconservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in the same newspaper: "In 2003, more than a month before the invasion of Iraq, I wrote in the Weekly Standard that the forthcoming fall of Baghdad `may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history - events like the storming of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall - after which everything is different'. If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if), it may mark the moment when the powerful antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and began to transform the region for the better. At the time, this kind of talk was dismissed by pretty much everyone not employed by the White House as neocon nuttiness. Democracy in the Middle East? Introduced by way of Iraq? You've got to be kidding! The only real debate in sophisticated circles was whether those who talked of democracy were simply naive fools or whether their risible rhetoric was meant to hide some sinister motive. Well, who's the simpleton now?"

The Christian Science Monitor editorialised: "With Sphinx-like mystery, Hosni Mubarak has cracked open the door for Egypt's first competitive election for president. The mystery lies in how much competition will actually be allowed."

The Los Angeles Times reported that "feminist Egyptian author and doctor Nawal Saadawi said she plans to stand in next year's presidential elections, however, she doesn't expect to win."

"I am going to stand in the presidential election, not to win but to get the Egyptian people moving in favour of a reform of the constitution and to oppose corruption and American colonialism," Saadawi said.

Former Ambassador Frank G. Wisner and Kenneth H. Bacon wrote in The Washington Post: "Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's announcement that he will open this year's presidential election to competing candidates generated both surprise and scepticism. The move is important and signals a most welcome step in Egypt's rebirth as a participating democracy. Sceptics, pointing to the arrest of an Egyptian opposition figure, are voicing their doubts. Overlooked in the growing debate about democracy in Egypt are the United States' invaluable relationship with that country and our partnership in securing peace and Egypt's stability in a troubled region."

Jim Lobe, my colleague at InterPress News Service, wrote: "Feeling vindicated by dramatic events in the Middle East since the Iraqi elections on Jan. 30, especially the growing international clamour for Syria to withdraw from Lebanon, neoconservatives are calling on President George W. Bush to seize the moment by pressing for `regime change' in Damascus and Iran, as well. Despite its own missionary rhetoric, the Bush administration, however, seems inclined to wait until the dust from the latest developments has settled and, to the growing frustration of the neocons and other unilateralists, to ensure that it not get too far ahead of its European allies in dealing with the region."

Joel Brinkley and David Sanger reported in The New York Times: "The Bush administration reacted cautiously to the proposal by Mubarak to amend the constitution to allow multiparty elections."

"This appears to be a step in the direction of a more open political system, and we welcome it," said Steven Pike, a State Department spokesman. At the same time, however, officials said they wanted more information from Egypt before deciding how meaningful the move might be.

"We have to see the details of the referendum," a senior administration official said. "We are hopeful, but until we know exactly what the government is embracing, it is too early to declare that it is a major change."

The conservative New York Post's Ralph Peters wrote: "For three years, this column has shot down the pessimists who warned we were bound to fail in the Middle East. Now those of us who see our confidence vindicated must beware a premature euphoria. There's plenty of work ahead. Our successes have been remarkable. In the past six weeks, we've seen more positive movement in the region than we saw in the preceding six decades. The political landscape of the old Islamic heartlands has changed breathtakingly since our first special-operations team went to work in the wake of Sept. 11."

Human Rights First, a leading advocacy group, wrote: "Mubarak's decision to amend the constitution to permit multicandidate direct elections for the presidency is a welcome step. It shows that he is feeling the weight of international and domestic pressure for change. This first step is not enough to meet the demands of the Egyptian people to have the right to choose their government through free and fair elections. The unjust imprisonment of opposition political leader Ayman Nour, and the harassment of Al Ghad political party shows how much more progress we still need in Egypt before we can talk about democratic reform."

Megan K. Stack of The Los Angeles Times wrote from Cairo: "In the smoggy, jostling streets of the Egyptian capital, people of all political stripes greeted Mubarak's surprise call for an open presidential election with deep scepticism Sunday. To people here, a representative government and civil liberties seem to hang on the horizon like mirages, tempting suggestions that quiver on satellite television and in university classrooms. But just when reform appears to draw close, it melts away."

The Associated Press said: "An open election has long been a demand of the opposition but was repeatedly rejected by the ruling party, with Mubarak only last month dismissing calls for reform as `futile'. The sudden shift was the first sign from the key US ally that it was ready to participate in the democratic evolution in the Middle East, particularly historic elections in Iraq and the Palestinian territories. Mubarak's government has faced increasingly vocal opposition at home and growing friction with the United States over the lack of reform.

"We have moved a mountain," said Rifaat Al Said, leader of the opposition Tagammu party. "This should open the gate for other democratic reforms."

This article was published in the Monday, March 14, 2005 edition of the Jordan Times. It is used here with permission.