When Democracy Fails

National unity fronts are all well and good, but what the region really needs is effective democratic government, writes Galal Nassar

A new wind is blowing over the Arab world and it brings with it a promise of many governments of national unity. In Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Mauritania and Somalia, national unity is a byword for politics.

In Iraq, the US administration is considering a government of national unity as a way to end violence. The Americans are shifting their tactics. Having established a system of sectarian and ethnic quotas that triggered a Vietnam-like movement of resistance, they now want something totally different. The irony is all too clear. After all, it was the US administration that disbanded the Iraqi army and insisted on eradicating the Baath Party, actions from which much of the current violence is alleged to stem.

In Palestine, free elections brought Hamas to power, only to be met by a blockade imposed by Israel, the US and their allies. Now national unity is being proposed as a way of appeasing Israel and the US. With Hamas consigned to the backseat of power, many hope that the Palestinians would once again be cordial in their dealings with the international community.

In Lebanon, a line is being drawn in the sand. On one side of that line is the 14 March group, also known as the Mustaqbal (future) current, or the parliamentary majority. This group is made up of Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, Saad Al-Hariri, and Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea. It has the support of the Maronite Church, the US, France, and several Arab countries. On the other side of the line are Hizbullah and the Free National Alliance of former President Michel Aoun, and Suleiman Franjieh, collectively referred to as the parliamentary minority. The parliamentary minority has the support of Syria, Iran, along with some local nationalist, leftist, and independent groups.

The two sides hold diametrically opposed views on Syria and the recent Hizbullah clash with Israel. The 14 March group pointedly accuses Hizbullah of starting an unnecessary war and jeopardizing Lebanon's economy and independence. The two groups are also divided on UN resolutions 1559 and 1701. The 14 March group sees the resolutions as a means of ensuring Lebanon's independence, while the Hizbullah-led coalition claims that the resolutions are a form of submission to US pressure. Hizbullah and its allies accuse the current government of corruption and of failure to tend to the needs of citizens, especially the displaced. A government of national unity is the only way to resolve the crisis, some say.

In Mauritania, a military coup unseated President Maaouiya Ould Taya last year. Coup leaders promised democracy within a year and fulfilled that promise. Now they're not running for office but are believed to support the parties opposing the former regime. The future may see a government of national unity bringing together members of the old regime as well as the powerful opposition.

In Somalia, the Islamic Courts forces have taken control of most of the country in a move evocative of the Taliban's early successes. Talk of foreign intervention is now common in the country, but the indisputable fact is that the Somalis have been a divided nation for quite sometime. Ethiopia and Eritrea are now getting dragged into the conflict and the only way out of protracted conflict seems to be the creation of national unity government.

What is the connection among the above cases? In every case, the countries involved are going through intense political crisis. In most, the constitution and the law offer no clear way of settling the matter. And invariably, outsiders back one or more of the domestic contenders. In Iraq and Palestine, foreign pressures are more powerful than in Lebanon, Mauritania and Somalia.

Direct occupation combined with a weak central government is evident both in Iraq and Palestine. In both cases, resistance to US and Zionist occupation is continuing. In Iraq's case, US forces are likely to depart soon, which would pave the way for a political solution. But in Palestine, the Olmert project is likely to waste more time and involve endless haggling over the rights of the Palestinians. In Lebanon, Mauritania, and Somalia, a certain degree of foreign intervention is to be expected, but this shouldn't stop locals from exploring reconciliatory action.

Foreign intervention and the lack of a clear formula for power rotation are the bane of domestic politics. But let's not forget that the reasons for infighting are almost always domestic. Sectarian considerations, ethnic rivalries and individual ambitions are bound to cause local tensions. In mature democracies, this shouldn't be a problem. Democracy provides the institutions and parties, civil rights and constitutional authorities, and the free press, that help countries avoid a head-on collision between rival groups.

Countries that have a long history of democracy know how to deal with divisions. This is why we don't see them scramble for governments of national unity. They don't need to, for they have other means of achieving peace and social order. Old democracies have a way of maintaining the dignity of all citizens and the probity of their political systems. In this part of the world, all of the above is lacking. This is why we have to resort to national unity governments. But what we really need is true democracy.

Source: Al-Ahram Weekly on 14 - 20 December 2006

Home | Contact us | Links | Archives