Can the US initiate democratic transformation in the Middle East? Scholars from a leading American think tank were in Cairo this week to find out, reports Aziza Sami Scholars from the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) were in Cairo this week to gauge public opinion on the Middle East Partnership initiative aimed at "democratising" Arab regimes, announced last December by US Secretary of State Colin Powell. The scholars, Marina Ottaway, Thomas Carothers, Daniel Brumberg and Amy Hawthorne, had participated in preparing a "policy brief" published last October entitled, "Democratic Mirage in the Middle East". The paper essentially cautions US policy-makers against what it describes as the Bush administration's "extraordinarily expansive, optimistic view of a new democratisation mission for America in the Middle East". It examines the validity of current US claims to promote democratisation in the region in view of other less successful "experiments" in countries like Haiti, Bosnia and Afghanistan. The paper also assesses the potential for real democratic transformation in the Middle East, which is considered to be limited. The reasons for this, aside from issues of economic development, relate to the nature of the region's, "semi-authoritarian regimes". The CEIP paper cites countries like Jordan, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco, who perpetuate their autocratic and non- democratic systems while claiming to pursue policies of "political liberalisation" which encompass never-ending "transitional phases". The paper suggests that this self-perpetuating process is implemented through, "controlled elections, divide-and-rule tactics and state interference in civil society organisations". These "semi-authoritarian" regimes -- which should include Saudi Arabia -- are the very ones which are currently supporting the US within the region. Thus, America might find itself in a quandary should sudden or radical regime change occur. The paper cautions that a spiral of rapid regime change, dismantling these traditional allies, might not be in the US's best interests after all. The Carnegie scholars, who have followed the Arabic press closely over the past several months, seem well acquainted with the deep scepticism of the Arab public regarding the partnership initiative -- often dubbed the "Powell initiative" -- albeit for vastly different reasons. Indeed, their views preempted those voiced by the audience attending a roundtable discussion on the topic. During the talk, arranged by Cairo University's Centre for the Study of Developing Countries (CSDC) and the recently established Centre for American Studies (CAS), Ottaway and Carothers outlined the reasons for the US democratisation initiative's lack of credibility. Guest-speakers and audience members alike cited America's unilateral and heavy-handed approach on Iraq, its flouting of international consensus, exemplified in its dealings with the UN and its persistent disregard for the Palestinian side in the conflict with Israel. The violation of Arab and Arab-American civil rights inside the US, justified as part of America's "war on terrorism" was also cited as undermining the Bush administration's claims of promoting democracy in the Arab world. The US's low credibility as a pro-democracy actor can also be attributed to its "traditional support of dictatorial regimes in the Arab world", said Carothers. The paradox would further be exacerbated by a US war on Iraq. Forced "regime change" will have extensive repercussions, "leading to greater rather than less authoritarianism in the region", he added. In its official declarations, the US administration has specifically pinpointed only two governments for regime change: Iraq and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). However, the audience indicated that these very choices may in themselves be self-defeating, because of the strong anti- American sentiment any regime change will fuel. In Iraq, regime change is expected to come via military action, while a modified PNA will be seen to be pursuing an Israeli-US agenda. However, the Carnegie scholars were careful to point out that the missionary-like zeal exhibited by the US administration's hard-liners, who advocate a series of domino-like regime changes, is countered by the more cautious view advocated by Secretary of State Powell and his under-secretary for planning, Richard Haass. The State Department, Ottaway says, tends to advocate a "more incremental and gradual" approach to democratisation. This policy of "not rocking the boat" too vigorously is more in line with the US's traditional approach to the region. For example, USAID programmes in Egypt have done little to challenge the political status quo, preferring instead to promote a bland version of democratisation that engages in a limited manner with civil society and legislative structures. USAID has justified this as catering to the "sensitivities" of the Egyptian government. No policies have been adopted which would encourage the formation of political parties or a change in the political elite. "The Powell initiative [utilises] rhetoric about regime change, but its focus is really on economic development, civil society and education. It occasionally uses the word democratisation [to refer to] a continuing tradition of political change which is slow and incremental," Brumberg says. Despite the existence of these two opposing views -- one advocating rapid regime change, the other more gradual -- the two are expected to, "work together in the coming phase". This could, however, lead to contradictions, or a lack of consistency. The CEIP paper also designates potential new actors with whom the US administration can seek links, bringing them into the democratisation process. "Westernised, non-governmental organisations and individuals with impeccable liberal credentials [who have] little influence in their societies", should no longer be given priority. Instead, the paper urges, "a dialogue with a wide cross- section of influential elites: mainstream academics, journalists, moderate Islamists and members of professional associations who play a political role in some Arab countries". However, Islamists -- as a political force which could potentially be mobilised in the democratisation process -- seem to posit a particular problem to US policy makers and the think tanks advising them. The CEIP paper recommends that the US government should "not reflexively attempt to marginalise Islamist groups", noting also that a distinction must be made between "truly extremist organisations that must be isolated and moderate Islamists who need to be encouraged to compete fairly, over time gaining incentives to moderate their illiberal ideologies". But there is also ambivalence on this issue. As part of its "Democracy and Rule of Law" programme, overseen by Ottaway, the CEIP published a study entitled, "The Other Face of the Islamists". Written by CSDC head Mustapha Kamel El-Sayyid, the paper argues that, "international enthusiasm shown for democracy promotion should not disappear when Islamists call for such reforms. Western countries ... should accept the outcome of a democratic process, wherever it takes place." In her preface to this study, Ottaway gives voice to what she describes as "the concern of the West ... that [Islamists] might not, in the end, adhere to the principles of Western democracy". No real transformation towards democracy can be considered authentic unless it gives a platform to major political forces in the region -- be they at odds with America's policies or not. Thus, it remains to be seen whether the US's democratisation initiative will hold water.
