Will the US Finally Live Up to Its Lofty Ideals? The Case for a More Aggressive Pro-Democracy Stance in the Arab World

George Esiri/Reuters

Updated: 2/28/05

Egyptian President Husni Mubarak, in a surprise announcement today, ordered a constitutional change to allow for a multi-candidate presidential election this fall. Opposition candidates, however, would still need approval by the full parliament, which is controlled by Mubarak's ruling National Democratic Party. -- Ed.

By Shadi Hamid

The language was eloquent, the message unprecedented. “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.” The President continued, “the road of providence is uneven and unpredictable, yet we know where it leads: It leads to freedom.” For some this was a call to arms, a frightening sign of America’s boundless imperial ambition in the Arab world. For me, however, this was a most appropriate progression, a sign that America was finally ready to assume its role as the world’s revolutionary purveyor of democratic ideals.

It was one of those rare speeches that attempted to tap into something truly noble, a cause that transcended politics. When I first read the words of President Bush’s January 20th inaugural address, I sat in amazement, overwhelmed, thinking – hoping – that America might one day live up to its lofty democratic ideals. As I slowly read the text of the speech, the elegant words, with their singsong quality, echoed. I felt what could only be described as a sudden rush of adrenaline as my belief in a free Arab world, unhampered by dictatorship, heightened. The slow, often bloody march of the 20th century concluded with the courageous spread of freedom in Latin America, parts of Africa, and of course Eastern Europe. Yet, the Middle East remained a sad, almost peculiar exception.

In his February 2nd State of the Union address, President Bush continued with many of the same themes, telling the rest of the world that “we will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right.” With soaring Wilsonian rhetoric, the President had raised the stakes. I stood wondering what this would mean for the future of the region, all the while remembering that this was the Middle East, a place where signs of progress have been almost invariably followed by the pain of disappointment. For the millions who have lived their entire lives under repressive Arab dictatorships, the temptation for pessimism is disturbingly powerful.

History, it would seem, has too often proven its opposition to the desires of the weak, the dreams of the destitute, and the wishes of those who have nothing but the belief that the freedom of the human spirit is, in the end, non-negotiable. What we call history, however, is only a product of man’s cumulative ambition, his successes and his failures. But, in reading the President’s words, we, if only for a moment, could afford to believe in the meta-narrative of endless of progress and, ultimately, the end of history itself. President Bush provided us with beautiful words that beckoned – words which resonated with poeticism and a hint of romantic longing, for this was no longer a matter of politics, but a matter of love, a love of freedom, and a love that bordered on religious devotion.

After I finished reading the speech, I sifted through feature stories and breaking news, and once again, reality, like it always does, slowly set in. I wanted so much to believe that the words of January 20th and February 2nd had meaning, because if they did, it would mean an unprecedented change in the way the US approached the Middle East. At the same time, I knew, as an observer of politics and politicians, that words, by themselves, had never changed history. Words, when followed by definite, sustained action, could. And, this perhaps, at least in my own mind, summed up the tragedy of the Middle East.

The Arabs, after decades of shattered hopes and forgotten promises from both their own leaders and the US, have learned the hard way. It was only four decades ago when the Arab world was intoxicated with the elixir of Arab nationalism, only to see it crushed by geo-political realities. In Egyptian President Gamal Abd al-Nasser, hailed as nothing less than a modern-day savior, the aspirations of a people became almost entirely dependent on the limitless ambition of one brilliant but deeply flawed man. Along with the death of the Nasser and his nationalist dream, came the death of the Arab spirit, which has been in hiding ever since. Most Arabs, instead of facing yet more disappointment, have since chosen to expect the worst, resigning themselves to their unfortunate predicament.

Apathy, that most bothersome and incurable of social ills, has proven especially contagious in the Middle East. Here, there are no velvet revolutions to be found. The US is guilty in this, as past administrations as well as the current one have consistently awarded Arab strongmen with billions of dollars in economic and military assistance, making it all the more difficult for the average Arab to believe a thing Bush says, no matter how sincere or eloquently phrased. We may have secured many of its vital economic and strategic interests in the region, but these have been largely pyrrhic victories, premised on a Faustian bargain with friendly, albeit authoritarian regimes. These stifling dictatorships have created a poisonous political environment conducive to the rise of extremist violence.

If we wish to tread a new bold path in the region, we must be fully aware of the mistakes and failings of the past. To this very day, the ghost of Algeria haunts the Arab world, and it should haunt US policymakers just the same. In the late 1980s, President Chadli Benjedid bravely initiated sweeping political reforms, moving the country toward a vibrant, multi-party system. When an Islamic party appeared poised to win the 1991 parliamentary elections, the Algerian military intervened and cancelled the elections, provoking a brutal civil war that would rage for the rest of the decade. Out of the ashes of democracy, the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), Algeria’s notorious terrorist organization, rose to prominence in a country previously known for its moderate, tolerant understanding of Islam. As the elections were abruptly annulled, the Western democracies stood by, doing nothing, and in some cases tacitly supported the coup. Algeria’s experiment with democracy had come to a premature end, leaving the Arab people to wonder what could have been but now would surely never be. The first Bush administration’s decision to remain silent in the face of such an assault on the foundations of democracy will be, in the ever-watchful annals of history, a tragic blemish on our record as a nation.

There are those in both the Democratic and Republican parties, however, who wish for a return to the days of cold, calculated realpolitik, with all the requisite cuddling of dictators which that inevitably entails. To me this is frightening, for the realists, it would appear, have lost faith in the very promise of America, in its ability to fulfill its potential as an exemplar of the ideals upon which it was founded. And then there are those who cite America’s support of authoritarian regimes in arguing that we have no right to preach “democracy” to the rest of the world. Yet, the worst thing that US could do now is allow itself to become hostage to past policies, however wrong and misguided they may have been.

Egypt is quickly proving to be the battleground where President Bush’s lofty words will be put to the test. President Mubarak has, since September 11th, proven to be the most outspoken opponent of America’s pro-democracy initiatives in the region. There was talk, however, that Mubarak’s National Democratic Party was moving a new direction, especially after the party’s annual conference last September is which it put forth a variety of economic and political reforms. “One-party rule is over,'” declared Mohamed Kamal of the NDP’s policy committee. In the conference’s closing address Mubarak assured us that he would “spread the culture of democracy.”

Yet, in recent weeks, Mubarak embarked on a systematic campaign to silence Egypt’s increasingly emboldened opposition. Numerous activists were detained, including Ayman Nour, the young, dynamic leader of the liberal Al-Ghad party, who was arrested on January 29th on clearly bogus charges. On February 22rd, while being interrogated at 1 a.m., Nour, a diabetic, began sweating and vomiting, leaving some human rights activists that after nearly one month of incarceration, his life may be in danger. The list goes on. In light of Bush’s inaugural speech and State of the Union address, these events in Egypt rightfully attracted widespread attention both in the US and abroad. Earlier this week, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, postponed a trip to Cairo in part because of concerns over Nour’s continued detention. According to one source, President Bush was "furious" about the recent arrests. Despite US displeasure and growing opposition, Mubarak didn’t budge and called efforts at constitutional reform “futile.”

Which is why Hosni Mubarak’s announcement on February 26 that Egypt would, for the first time in its history, have multi-candidate president elections, surprised just about everyone. Some, perhaps prematurely, have hailed this as a bold, courageous move. They should, however, remember that this is the Arab world, where nothing is at it seems and where presidents have mastered the art of seizing power and holding on to it for what seems an eternity. Mr. Mubarak (or Baba Hosni as Egyptians affectionately call him) is not a democrat and it is unlikely that, less than one month after the arrest of Ayman Nour, he has experienced a sudden change of heart (or found an Arabic translation of Locke while walking the palace grounds). Rather, this is nothing more than yet another survival strategy and, if history is any guide, it will not be the last. With his “historic” announcement, Mubarak has gained international praise, blunted the demands of the opposition, absorbed popular pressures, and quieted the Americans, without really doing anything to alter the authoritarian structures of the state. It is looking as if Egypt, by September’s presidential elections, will have graduated into prestigious ranks of the world’s “electoral dictatorships,” joining the likes of Algeria and Tunisia. A regime that was last week blatantly illegitimate has staked its claim to legitimacy. Although it will be tempting to declare this a resounding victory for American foreign policy, the Bush administration should instead use this opening to push even harder than before for comprehensive, total political reform in Cairo.

Egypt, with more than 70 million people, is the heart of the Arab world as well as its intellectual, cultural and political center. A democratic breakthrough in Egypt would be a major turning point and a vindication of America’s decision to make political reform the centerpiece of its mid-East policy. Moreover, true success in Egypt, coupled with the recent elections in Iraq, would provide an almost unstoppable impetus for widespread change throughout the Arab world.

Making progress will not be easy, but it is within reach. The Mubarak regime, the second largest recipient of US aid, receives more than 2 billion dollars annually in economic and military assistance. This gives the Bush administration the leverage needed to exert continued, sustained pressure on Egypt in the critical months ahead. A good place to start would be ensuring that Mr. Mubarak allows his presidential challengers equal access to political resources and media coverage. Come September, the US and the European Union might want to consider dispatching an army of election observers to embarrass the regime into playing fair with the ballot boxes. Democracy promotion requires a long-term commitment, not isolated acts of political will. If Mubarak proves unwilling to convert his grandiose calls for historic reform into actual policies on the ground, then the US, accordingly, should consider slashing economic aid.

A battle of wills is in the making. President Mubarak is no American lackey. He is a cunning politician who knows how to get what he wants from the Americans. Recently, Mubarak has been playing the role of peacemaker, hosting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the seaside resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh in early February. In case the US has forgotten, Mubarak, playing the role of dutiful American ally, is dangling the long-standing Faustian bargain back in President Bush’s face. The Bush administration needs Mubarak’s assistance as it seeks some semblance of peace in Palestine, but at the same time, it cannot let him dictate the terms of the US-Egypt relationship. If it does, then it will be admitting to the world that nothing has really changed and that the old game of shortsighted political back-scratching still rules the day.

In these trying times, we must remember that the cause of democracy is a just one. It is time, finally, for the US to prove in practice its rhetorical commitment to the promotion of democracy in, this, the most undemocratic region in the world. Strong words from Secretary Rice and Bush’s “fury” will not suffice.

We are the only the nation with the power and influence to help the oppressed peoples of the Middle East in their struggle for liberty. An unprecedented opportunity is at hand. In Iraq, in Palestine, and, now, in Egypt, the Arab world is experiencing a democratic moment. But, like all moments, this one will pass and it may not come again. Those of us who care for democracy – whether we happen to be American or Arab, or both – must therefore act quickly and decisively. While it is tempting and certainly warranted to hold the current administration to account for past injustices, we must, now, give it a chance to prove itself. The Arab people (and American Muslims) have always complained of continued US support for Arab dictators. Now, finally, there are signs of change. Let us seize this moment, hold it, strengthen it, nurture it, and fight, with uncompromising determination, for the revolution that is sweeping the Arab world,

In other words, this is not a time for pessimism or a return to the realpolitik of old. Intellectuals and philosophers often complain that the age of great ideas has ended. And, it is true, many ideas have died sudden deaths. Yet I am convinced, now more than ever, that there remains one idea worth believing in. And that is the notion that every man and woman, irrespective of culture or religion, has the right to have a say in his or her own future. What that future will be is a chapter yet to be written. But, may I hope, that we help write it.

Shadi Hamid is a Fulbright Fellow in Amman, Jordan, conducting research on democratization and political Islam in the Arab world. His articles have, most recently, appeared in The Jerusalem Post and the International Journal for Civil Society Law.