Democracy In the Middle East Means All Or Nothing

By. Phillip

Elections and Democracy, these words are often paired with freedom and justice. However, this hasn't been the case in the Middle East. Instead democracy has been just a byword for civil war. Four years ago the American people and the world were told to prepare for a democratic revolution in the Middle East, all thanks of course, to US forces blowing down the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein. One could say that truly has come to pass: with democracy came revolution. Unfortunately, the desired revolution of the Bush administration failed to come to fruition. The revolution now is an Islamist one, all thanks to democracy. As we look at the turmoil between rival Palestinian groups one can only blame a push to elections. In the Middle East, just as with George Bush's rhetoric: there is no gray, only black and white. "Democracies are good/peaceful, dictatorships bad," juxtaposed to "Islam is the only answer, democracy and anything short of Sharia law is evil." "You are either for us, or against us," is the only logic that transpires.

Machiavelli once said, "It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favour; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it." Gaza, Iraq, and Lebanon are all smoldering due to "democratic change." Why does this always seem to happen in Middle Eastern "democracies?" Islamist victory would clearly be a leap backward into the 11th century while current "populist" dictatorships are as moribund and corrupt as the former Soviet Union circa 1992.

We in the West should have expected Gaza to turn into a tinderbox following the Hamas victory, not just because Hamas is a violent Islamist terrorist group, but because politics in the Middle East to use the oft quoted Mao, "Grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Algeria 1992: In 1991 the FIS, an Islamist party won 188 seats in Algeria's parliament following democratic elections, giving it a very clear majority. Following the elections, a secular military junta led by Mohammed Boudiaf took power, canceled the elections and declared the Islamists to be invalid. So started the the Algerian Civil War that continues today. Bombings, assassinations (including the assassination of Boudiaf), and massacres occurred. Its important to note that the FIS, formed the AIS (its armed wing) as early as 1992-1993. So, when the government clamps down, get a gun. That doesn't sound too unreasonable considering this is how many revolutions in the West have occurred, but of course in the Middle East militia politics is interchangeable with politics.

Lebanon 1975: Demography has always been at the heart of Lebanon's political system. Maronite Christians (the majority when the last census was held in 1932) hold the Presidency a Sunni Muslim is Prime Minister and a Shi'ite is the Speaker. Threatened with a growth in Muslim population and power and feeling as alone in a sea of Islamic enemies, not to mention an influx of heavily armed Palestinians, Lebanese Christians form themselves into a number of militias. The largest and most powerful of which was the LF (Lebanese Forces). Muslims who either felt disenfranchised, wanted union with Syria, or sided with the Palestinians (to name a few reasons) also formed numerous militias.

When arguments break down in parliament it is always good to have thousands of heavily armed men who can attack your opponent(s). It is a kill or be killed world on the shores of the southern and eastern Meditereanean.

In 1982 Lebanese President elect and LF commander Bachir Gemayel was to sign a peace deal with Israel. For this he payed with his life, as an SSNP (Syrian Social Nationalist Party) bomb ripped through an apartment building he was speaking in. As a result members of the LF in an operation to "clear PLO militants" out of the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps used the opportunity to massacre their despised enemy, the Palestinians. 600-1000 Palestinians were killed in response to the murder of their leader. Clearly one side cannot be left standing, it is not as the Bible describes as "eye for an eye" but instead a village for an eye. The rationale is: there won't be an enemy if I wipe every single one of them out, once that occurs "my side" can preserve/take power.

Syria 1982: Syrian President Hafez Asad is threatened by a rebellion by the Muslim Brotherhood. Members of Asad's sectarian group, the Alawites are gunned down in an Artillery school in 1979, and open rebellion by many Islamist Sunni Muslims becomes widespread. In keeping with the "village for an eye" rules Asad crushes the Muslim Brotherhood. Hafez's brother Rifat commands 12,000 men; complete with helicopters, tanks, and armored vehicles. These 12,000 men besiege the Muslim Brotherhood in their stronghold city of Hama. Rifat under orders from Hafez simply flattened the city of Hama killing by some estimates up to 20,000 people. Editorialist Thomas Friedman described the action and how politics are waged in the Middle East in his book Beirut To Jerusalem as "Hama Rules." Now, even though the Islamist insurrection in Syria took place not because of democratic elections, but because Sunnis (70% majority population) and Sunni Islamists regarded Asad and his minority Alawite religious group as heretics, the Hama Massacre only highlights that in the Middle East the common way of dealing with opposition is to crush it ruthlessly.

Gaza 2007: After the January elections the Palestinian terrorist group, Hamas, took the parliamentary majority, they ran on a ticket opposing the corrupt Fatah party and on a goal to destroy Israel. Fatah, while still a sponsor of terrorism, saw Hamas as a clear and present danger to its over a decade long hold on Palestinian Authority power. Hamas on the other hand saw Fatah as a bug that needed to be crushed, so they could be the main power broker of the Palestinians. Subsequently, Hamas started to smuggle more weapons in via its Gaza tunnels. Fatah remained on high alert, fearing its tenous grip on power in Gaza would fall. In ensuing the power struggle there were shootings and kidnappings, what some would call a low-scale tit for tat squabble.

As with many civil wars/inter-sectarian conflicts, small raids devolved into full scale open conflict. More than one hundred people are dead from a weeks worth of fighting. Masked Hamas Gunmen stormed offices belonging to Fatah officials and related organizations. They subsequently threw their enemies off of roofs or summarily executed them in the streets. It was the shootout at the OK Corral, only in Rafah. One man would be left standing, even though many Arab countries tried to form a Palestinian unity government, coexistence and uniting for a common cause (even against a much hated enemy: Israel) couldn't be achieved. It was simply impossible for Hamas or Fatah officials to imagine they could be in the same government together. It was one or the other, black or white. Hamas now has Gaza, Fatah is solidifying its hold on the West Bank.

Rules for Politics in the Middle East:

1. Always have a militia/armed wing to back up a political party. If there is no force behind your party then you are as good as dead.
2. If you must engage your enemy in open conflict make sure they are crushed completely and ruthlessly. If you wipe out an enemy then there can be no one to counter you.
3. Even winning an election doesn't mean you have power, the only way to achieve full power is to wipe out any and all opposition.

Welcome to the Middle East. Where an outsider has to go along with the rule of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" (i.e. a "secular" dictatorship providing enough coercive force is much better to have around rather than a radical Islamist dictatorship). Democracy in the Middle East is as a Lebanese friend put it, "demockary," one can claim to have free and open elections, but regardless of the results the one with the most guns makes the rules.