authoritarian democracy in the middle east

[Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>]

quote du jour:

"I voted because I was so excited — finally I can pick the candidate I
want," said Hussein Marzouk, an Iraqi refugee living in Lebanon. "But
then I found out that I risked my life for nothing. It turned to be a
phony game the Americans brought with them that was full of fraud. So
why would I vote again?"

there's a man who jumped from the fire into the frying pan.

----

June 7, 2007 / New York TIMES

Memo From the Middle East
Ballot Boxes? Yes. Actual Democracy? Tough Question.

By MICHAEL SLACKMAN

CAIRO, June 6 — This is election season in the Middle East. Syria just
held presidential and parliamentary elections. Algeria held
parliamentary elections. Egyptians will be asked to vote next week on
a new upper house of Parliament. There will soon be elections in
Jordan, Morocco and Oman, followed by elections in Qatar. So is
democracy suddenly taking root in the strongman's last regional
stronghold?

The consensus among democracy advocates, diplomats and citizens
interviewed around the Middle East is that the reverse is true.
Elections, it appears, have increasingly become a tool used by
authoritarian leaders to claim legitimacy.

"There is a state of depression and lack of trust, or faith, among the
Arab masses in the regimes and little belief that these elections can
lead to the change aspired to," said Jaffar al-Shayeb, a member of the
municipal council in Qatif, Saudi Arabia, an advisory body without
legislative authority.

The problem is not just what that means for people forced to live
under authoritarian rule, but what it does to the broader perception
of democracy in the region. Countries like Egypt and Syria, which hold
elections, also allow a ruling class to hold a monopoly on power,
limit freedom of speech and assembly and deny their citizens due
process.

"There isn't any democratic regime in the whole world," Abbas Mroue,
29, said as he sat in a coffee shop with friends in Beirut, Lebanon,
one day recently chatting about politics and governance.

"Yes," replied Hussein Jaffal, 31, "there is democracy, but there are
no freedoms."

It is that view that seems to be spreading, one that has confused the
process of elections with the principles of democracy.

It is a conclusion that may well have roots in Washington, where
officials have frequently pointed to elections as a barometer of
progress, but it may contribute to tarnishing the concept of
democracy, diplomats and democracy advocates in the region agreed.

Iraq, where a freely elected government has been paralyzed by
sectarian disputes, stands as a particularly damaging example.
"Democracy itself has lost credibility as a way of government," said a
Western diplomat based in Algiers, speaking on condition of anonymity,
following customary diplomatic protocol. "I think the Iraqi
experiment, and the purple finger, didn't help anything. People now
say this democracy is not the answer to anything."

The purple finger had initially been a symbol of pride in what was
hoped to be Iraq's nascent democracy. Millions turned out to cast
their ballots in the first post-Saddam-Hussein election, dipping a
finger in ink to prevent double voting.

Rightly or wrongly, the purple finger has become a symbol of failure.

"I voted because I was so excited — finally I can pick the candidate I
want," said Hussein Marzouk, an Iraqi refugee living in Lebanon. "But
then I found out that I risked my life for nothing. It turned to be a
phony game the Americans brought with them that was full of fraud. So
why would I vote again?"

For decades there have been less than democratic elections in the
Middle East, where ruling parties control candidates' and voters'
access to the ballot and also control the vote counting.

more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/world/middleeast/07democracy.html
--
Jim Devine /  "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your
own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.