Let us speak about dictatorships in simple but still academic language. It does merely mean a will of minority imposed on the interests of the rest of people. We may speak about dictatorship, whenever such narrow group constituted a political organization and used the strength of the government institutions to forcefully impose their will on the people. The minority might be composed of variety of narrow groups – family, clan, regional grouping, religious community, political party. The most conspicuous example of the latter case was the Soviet regime, which was rested on the superiority of communist party elite.
Keep in mind that historically there used to be societies that legalized superiority of certain groups. Those were autocracy monarchies that ruled for the interests of nobility. In Middle East few such monarchies survived. Their resilience to resist and suppress the growing strive toward democracy and government accountability could be bigger than the capacity of allegedly elected presidents or leaders to keep staying in power.
No did only formal legitimacy of dynasties provided sustainability for monarchies, but also oil reserves and partnerships with the West. However after the World War II the historical momentum has come for democratization in Middle East, value of citizenship has emerged, legitimacy corrections via election has become declared foundation stone of political power. Egypt and Libya, as well as few other Arab countries, such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen underwent anti-monarchic nationalist revolutions that were coloured with a sense of anti-imperialism. Decolonization of Tunisia and Algeria followed Egyptian revolution of 1952 and consequently enhanced the sense of anti-colonialism
.
The problem of those revolutions was that they ended up with resurrection of minority dictatorship. In a search of legitimacy some newly established republican dictatorships drifted towards partnerships with the West (Egypt and Libya lately), others sustained their anti-Western track and rhetoric for the same purpose (Syria and Iraq until the US lead intervention).
Popular indignation in Tunisia and especially rigorous and stubborn struggle of Egyptians stirred up the whole range of aspirations and grievances. Unlike the previous experiences of the Middle East now all multipliers and unknown quantities have come to a single equation: The West, autocratic monarchies, anti-western dictatorships, and toppled pro-western dictatorships should now go along with aspirations for democracy and renovation and the rising sense of dignity. Equation is new but determinants seem not much changed.
For some time Kaddafi struggled for the interest of all dictatorships trying to establish a successful suppression precedent against popular movement. However factors of equation still are not the same as forty years ago. I would say the country citizens have changed to affect the former equilibrium, and secondly the West has become more sensitive about human rights and democracy and more accountable with their own citizens.
Nevertheless, proofs of new policy in Middle East still are not visible. Monarchies assembled in Arab States Leagues to give up a dictator whom they did not like anyway, but the price was the safeguard of the next of kin – al-Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain. Gulf Cooperation Council first decided to support non-fly zone to be imposed on Libya and promoted appropriate decision at the League of Arab States last weekend. Then on Monday the Gulf Council countries sent troops to confine protest and unrest in Bahrain.
Have old allies come to arrangement once again: monarchies and the West? What instruments have been left for anti-western dictatorships? Who will benefit of the unleashed popular rigor? Have not we seen the same equation with the same multipliers in the past few decades? What is new in the Western policy in Middle East, if any might be asserted?If there is a single factor that cold change the old equation, it is people of Middle East.
No comments:
Post a Comment