When I was asked to write about the future of democracy in the Arab world today, I found myself faced with a systematic problem: how can I talk about the future of an experience that has not yet been born? If the Western world today is trying to provide a critical analysis of the democratic experience and to explore its future and the challenges, especially in the face of the growing popularity of the far right, Brexit and the election of Trump, then the discussion on the other side of the Mediterranean is taking another dimension in the absence of any real democratic experience that could be monitored and followed in a particular historical context.
Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and until the post-independence era, the democratic experience has been absent in the Arab world. This was mainly due to the emergence of a nationalist Arab movement during the 1930s and the 1950s which called for the establishment of an Arab state that encompasses all Arabs, ignoring the demands and rights of the ethnic, linguistic and cultural minorities of these countries. This movement adopted the socialist dogma in criticizing European modernity and suppressing the voices calling for democracy and freedom under the pretext of fighting Western imperialism and its supporters (which were branded as traitors) inside. It was followed by the weakness of the semi-democratic socialist currents as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, which demanded democracy by playing the role of the opposition to Western-backed authoritarian regimes. First, the tyranny of the socialist regimes; Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, Boumediene in Algeria and Gaddafi in Libya, all of whom rose to power through military coups. Then, the curse of the Cold War that led the West to ally itself with dictatorial regimes in order to fight the Communist tide. The existence of traditional Monarchies which derive their legitimacy from religion, where the king is considered the shadow of God on earth as is the case in Morocco. Add to that the dominance of a religious culture that strengthens censorship and oppresses the right of freedom of thought and speech in the face of the growing of political Islam movements and their popularity in the 19 (20th surely) century, The defeat by Israel in 1967, which many supporters of political Islam attributed to the Arabs straying away from the teachings of Islam and then the success of the Iranian Islamic revolution in 1979, which inspired the Muslim Brotherhood and many other movements of political Islam across the world such as Darul Islam in Southeast Asia to work more to establish the religious state. It is also necessary not to ignore the psychological aspect of the relations of the Arab countries with the Western culture that produced the idea of democracy, which was characterized by a sense of fascination, caution and rejection, by considering democracy and its values such as pluralism, equality and respect for human rights as imperial tools that conceal colonial ambitions aimed at fighting Islam.
Modernity is the soul of democracy
Political modernity means full equality between citizens irrespective of their religious or ethnic affiliation. In the Arab world there is a separation of democracy from its liberal and cultural foundations. If we try to look at democracy in light of the definition above, then there can be no democracy without political modernity; we cannot talk about the sovereignty of the people, the separation of powers, the equality of people, the guarantee of individual liberties and freedom of belief… without the adoption of modernity; and the consolidation of secularism, freedom of criticism and self-criticism of the self and the society. This requires a ruthless confrontation with the Islamic heritage, and a comprehensive critique of the foundations of traditional religious thought. This cannot be accomplished without first, opening up to the rational historical models from within the Arab and Islamic culture.
Democracy without political modernity always results in dictators winning at the ballots. Regimes that reject modernity can never guarantee human rights or religious freedom. A good example of this is Iran. Despite the written constitution the parliamentary and presidential elections, without a constitution that respects political pluralism and guarantees individual freedoms and freedom of expression, and in the presence of the Office of the Supreme Leader and his institutions (Revolutionary Guards etc.) Iran cannot be considered a democratic state and the elections remain a mere game.
Arab spring or the deferred hope
The elections that took place in Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco after the Arab Spring protests confronts us with a different reality and new hopes that everyone still looks at expectantly. It was the first experience after decades of despotism in which citizens were given the right to free choice, however, after the announcement of the ballot results, in which the Islamic Ennahda Party in Tunis obtained 37% of the vote, Egyptians elected Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood as their new president. The debate and controversy over democracy seemed to take another path, the long-awaited baby which everybody waited to see, was born with the face of a monster, and made the world wonder: what is the usefulness of the Arab Spring if the goal of the revolution and revolutionaries is to replace a tyrannical regime with a theocracy? Despite everything, hopes have always been focused on the Tunisian example. The 37 percent the Islamists gained forced them to engage in political alliances and make concessions to form the government. The vigilance of youth and civil society and their continuous measures made to protect the “gains of the revolution” made Tunisia a special exception, compared to the crisis situation known to the other neighboring countries such as Egypt and Libya, knowing that Egypt also knew such demonstrations too.
Of course, in this context, I cannot talk about the Arab countries with some sort of generalization. Historical, social, ethnic, religious and political differences (presidential republics, monarchies …) require each country to be dealt with separately. But the factor or factors that I would like to present in the light of the experience of the Arab Spring can be observed in all the Arab countries that have known popular protests since the spring of 2011, with the exception of one or two.
The first factor is that the slogans raised by the protesters were not demanding democracy, but dignity, freedom and social justice, which are conscious and specific demands. This evokes the peculiarity of Arab political regimes that have long tried to legitimize their power through parliaments and mock elections that did not reflect or live up to the aspirations of their peoples. The masses were aware that elections are not necessarily about democracy, not in the Arab world or anywhere else in the world. Therefore the demands have exceeded the superficial appearance of democracy represented in repeated elections, to the very essence of good governance, guaranteeing human dignity and equal rights, and the ability to hold those in power accountable.
The second factor – and the most important one in my opinion – is that the experience of the Arab Spring broke all the rules of the political game. The Arab revolution was not expected by anyone. Even the revolutionary leftists with the slogans of people’s revolution did not expect it or dream of it. They did not believe that one day the Arab citizen would go out onto the streets and protest against his tyrant governor. Not only because of fear, repression, secret prisons and arbitrary arrests, which have always been the first and only answer to any attempt at protest or criticism of the ruling regimes, but – and this is the most importan- the socialist intellectuals and politicians had a quasi-religious belief that the revolution could not be conducted without “class consciousness” of the people, and such revolution would need a Marxist socialist leadership as otherwise it cannot be a revolution. Suddenly, the citizens went out to protest, doing away with all expectations and prejudices, but also all the ideological classical dictionaries of the revolution. The politically and intellectually dazzled stood helplessly before a youth movement which did not care to consult anyone to declare the beginning of the revolution. This made the Arab Spring revolution a revolt against the traditional classical opposition movements even more than a revolution against political tyranny. And here it becomes crystal clear that the spirit moving the Arab world nowadays is a new movement led mostly by the youth.
The shock of globalization: from Napoleon to Zuckerberg
The Arab world suffered a deep cultural earthquake, when it was in awe of Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of Egypt in 1798, for he brought with him, not only scores of artillery and soldiers, but the ideas of the enlightenment as well. “The French came with the cannon and the printer and returned to their country with the first and left the second,” says writer Kamal Zouhiri. Bonaparte represented the superiority of Western civilization, which was the focus of simultaneous admiration and rejection, in view of the inability and backwardness of the Arab and Muslim world under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Napoleon is credited with creating two schools, a museum, a bookshop and a printer in Egypt, making his invasion the first real meeting of Arabs with the West and its cultural and intellectual achievements. The result of this cultural communication was the emergence of a secular Arab cultural movement that was against the invasion but at the same time interested in translating the scientific achievements of the West and in so doing revive Arab cultural heritage, which had been in a long and deep slumber since the fall of Baghdad by the Mongols in 1258. This cultural movement was met by strong conservative Islamic currents which pushed it into isolation and drove it to become an elite movement condemned to failure.
With the digital revolution of the 21st century and the cultural and social changes that accompanied it, the Arab world witnessed a second cultural shock, perhaps more radical than the shock of Bonaparte. Freedom of speech was known to Arab youth purely by grace of the Internet, the books and ideas censored by the authoritarian regimes were now just a click away. People finally gained access to the modern and classical fine arts such as music, cinema, and the different themes of literature and philosophy without suffering the limits imposed by the old means of censorship. A principal example of this is the translation into Arabic of Richard Dawkins’s bestseller The God Delusion, which was downloaded ten million times in PDF form, thirty percent of these downloads being from Saudi Arabia alone.
This globalized market of thought and culture provided Arab youth with a different lifestyle enabling them to see the Holy Trinity of religion, politics and sex critically. This prompted Arab youth to express their desire to modernize and overcome the past and all its traditional restrictive systems – family and religion. They did so to one degree with a consciousness similar to the way many activists, bloggers and feminists act or manifested it unconsciously by simply recognizing the benefit at a personal level seeking to live in a modern open society. What is unique in this desire to modernize and embrace the future and the present by the youth of the Arab world is that it was not merely a phenomenon of confined to the rich and middle classes, but extended to the poor – the people of the populous neighborhoods and villages, which are usually those that represent the most conservative social groups. Such ideas, in the recent past were accessible to the upper classes exclusively and resulted from study missions to the West supported by the luxury of financial means to travel abroad. But all of this and more became accessible to all social classes – simply by means of a click on YouTube or other sites.
No democracy without a liberal cultural revolution
Something we must agree on: We cannot move to political modernity (democracy) without intellectual modernity. The revolutions of the Arab Spring were an important historical event. Their power was to diagnose and detect the social diseases and contradictions from which Arab society suffers. It was the mirror which showed the true face of the Arab world; its religious extremism, sectarian and ethnic divisions, traditional and modernist conflicts and most of all the potential of the Zuckerberg generation to create social discussion about certain taboos and also mobilize for individual freedoms and universal rights. One of the most important needs of the Arab world to achieve democracy is to have a cultural revolution which moves beyond the past, a revolution that raises the banner of intellectual and religious freedom. In order to achieve this, Arab societies need to have modern citizens. This, however, may seem very difficult and sometimes impossible.
The modernity discourse has always been an elitist subject discussed in cultural salons and some literary cafes, but with the digital generation we have begun to notice the emerging of a new enlightenment movement that benefits from the possibilities of modern communication and create social debate. Alongside several liberal Islamic thinkers such as Islam Bahiri in Egypt, Said Nasheed in Morocco, and Elham Manea in Yemen, who prioritize the good governance of the state over the religious script, and all the voices of Arab and Muslim secularists who defend religious freedom and the values of universal human rights, all these have their voices disseminated on the Internet. The Internet has turned Arab intellectuals into Socratic intellectuals, who “walk in the markets and talk to people and ask questions,” as the Egyptian thinker Ahmed Zeid commented on the effect of the ongoing internet’s Cultural Revolution in the Arab world. In other words, the Interne
t is the market of ideas that made Arab intellectuals Socratic intellectuals whether they liked it or not. Thus, the birth of democracy and modernity in the Arab world is a hostage to the success of the Internet generation and its cultural project. Although, it is necessary to mention that while there are certainly many young and liberal minds which represent this digital cultural movement, there are still masses of conservative and traditional people (usually from the rural areas as could be seen in both Tunisia and Egypt) implementing the internet to fight all attempts at cultural modernity.
This Essay was first published in the SwissFuture Magazin 03/2017