Two very different kinds of events took place in the Middle East last Sunday that neatly capture the riddle about how best to promote political change, democracy and the rule of law in this stubbornly autocratic region. The war-induced democratic elections in Iraq and a conference of Arab democracy activists in Beirut on judicial reforms speak volumes about whether Arab democracy will result more from external or internal pressures.
In Iraq, the American armed forces that toppled the former Baathist regime headed by Saddam Hussein culminated their nearly two years of military administration of the country by holding an election for a transitional national assembly that will write a permanent constitution. Washington and a few others have heralded war-borne democracy as a feasible approach, in the circumstances, to promoting freedom and good governance in the Middle East, despite the high cost of the American-led policy in Iraq: tens of thousands of dead and injured people on all sides, widespread diplomatic tensions, increased terrorism and violence, and reshuffled relationships and new worries throughout the region.
The worst case scenario would see Iraq suffer years of political tension and violence, perhaps even civil war and a break-up of the country, and deeper ripples of anti-American-induced violence and terror all over the Middle East. In a best case scenario, the costs of democracy-by-external-regime-change would prove to be short-term, leading soon to a stable, democratic governance system that would allow Iraq to flourish and also spread dramatic new ripples of democracy and freedom throughout the Middle East.
The obvious exuberance of most Iraqis who voted Sunday sent a clear message with several components: Iraqis want freedom and liberation from homegrown tyrants and foreign troops alike, they wish to choose their own rulers and governance system, they accept to achieve these goals in a phased, gradual manner, and they reject the violent campaign of terror against the nascent Iraqi security forces and foreign troops. They braved death to vote, in order to start the transition from American to Iraqi sovereignty.
The really hard work will now begin, including achieving a realistic and sustainable power-sharing balance among the main political, religious and ethnic groups in the country. Only a credible, legitimate and inclusive Iraqi government can restore security in a manner that the American army and the American-appointed Iraqi authorities have not been able to do since April 2003. One of the trickiest issues to sort out will be the long-term American relationship with Iraq, including the presence of US troops in the country.
Meanwhile, in a hotel conference room in a Beirut suburb Sunday, some 40 lawyers, researchers and civil society activists from half a dozen Arab countries opened a much less dramatic two-day workshop titled "Legal professions and judicial reforms in the Arab world". Unlike the Iraqi elections, the world's media were not there, and politicians and leaders did not make grandiose statements about epics of freedom, divinely mandated rights and global historical change.
Yet, I sense that the long-term prospects for Arab democracy and the rule of law will result as much from the work of such gatherings of indigenous democrats and reformers as they will from cataclysmic regime changes and instant elections intermediated by foreign armies.
In the final analysis, history suggests, stable democracy happens as a consequence of citizens who feel secure and self-confident because they enjoy the protection of the rule of law which, in turn, is administered by an independent judiciary deriving its authority from the will of the citizenry. Elections express that will, but the rule of law protects it and ensures its perpetuity, as we just witnessed in Ukraine.
The Beirut workshop, organised by the Lebanese Centre for Policy Studies and held under the aegis of the World Bank-funded Mediterranean Development Forum, heard presentations on the status of the legal professions in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Morocco, Bahrain, Algeria and Egypt. The picture presented was not pleasant. In all these and other Arab countries, the legal professions suffer deep structural problems, including various degrees of poorly trained lawyers, lack of research facilities, politicised lawyers' associations, many corrupt and mediocre judges with insufficient staff aides, crowded courtrooms, outdated training curricula and systems, and, most problematically, judicial systems that are dominated and manipulated by executive branches of government. As one lawyer noted wryly, "the law in most Arab countries is a collection of the Sultan's orders. The judiciary tends to legitimise the dictates of the ruler".
Over and over, the participants returned to the central problem of autocratic political systems in which the law is subordinated to the power and whims of the ruling elite. The participants agreed, however, that technical legal system reforms -- improving case management, training, pay, basic texts, automation and personnel quality -- could enhance the independence and impact of the judiciary, increase the impact of the rule of law, and ultimately spur reforms in other sectors of society.
So, do you send in the Marines or fortify your lawyers to promote democracy in the Middle East? The two events that I describe here suggest that external shock therapy can play a role in some cases, but that long-term, stable democracy requires the painstaking work of qualified experts, committed democrats, men and women of the law and engaged, enlightened citizens who push, prod and challenge their ruling elites from within.
The Arabs who voted for their transitional parliament in Iraq and the Arabs who deliberated the rule of law in Beirut last Sunday both engaged in risky activities that sought to change history. They will both succeed if they work together, which is why the urgent next step throughout the Middle East -- by locals and concerned foreign parties alike -- must be the battle to make the law supreme.
By Rami G. Khouri
© Jordan Times 2005
