Revolutions for the Democratisation of regimes can lead to Unpredictable Transitions in the formation of Governments
Abstract
Democracy has been the most sought-after way of life for most states from the start of the renaissance. Whether it was the French revolution, the American independence movement or India’s struggle for freedom; all of them were aimed at transitioning their states into democracies. The modus operandi to achieve the same takes various shapes and forms- it can range from peaceful protests demanding for a democracy to violent clashes leading to war and bloodshed. Thus, the end result and its consequences on the state formation also equally vary. Not every movement seeking for a democracy ends up with one. It can sometimes lead to successful democracies that set an example for other nations trying to achieve the same. On the other hand, it can end up in draconian, extremist autocratic governments and civil wars which can last for decades. The author of this paper is trying to prove the same by narrowing down the movements for democracy centred around the Arab nations in recent times. This paper focuses on the causes and consequences of the Arab Spring on various middle-eastern nations which went all out for a democratic state. And how only a few states prospered in their cause while it took an ugly turn for the rest. This paper is an effort to validate what happened in the Arab nations holds true to every democratic movement that ever occurred and will in the future.
Arab Spring: The Background
The Arab Spring was a series of revolutions which emerged in 2010 and lasted till 2013 in the Middle-eastern and North African (MENA) region. Its nomenclature was inspired from
the Prague Spring of 1968 which took place in Czechoslovakia. The use of the term “Arab Spring” was first initiated by US political academic journal “Foreign Policy” 1. It was a struggle for having democratic states and it first erupted in Tunisia. Tunisia is the northernmost country in the continent Africa which is predominantly Arab in its ethnicity. Tunisia was a corrupt and authoritarian state under the rule of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali for more than two decades. There was widespread unemployment, corruption, economic stagnation, poor living conditions, political and security restrictions and lack of fair elections. The movement was a reaction to this apologetic condition of the people in the state. The protests took a shape with the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, a street vendor who was enraged with the corruption of local officials who demanded bribes and confiscated his fruit cart, which was the only means of survival for him to sustain his family2. He set himself alight after the authorities failed to take in his complaint. This raised protests and tensions all over Tunisia, thus making it the first country having a direct impact of the revolution. The major countries which were a part of the Arab Spring include Yemen, Bahrain, Libya and Syria. Other countries that were impacted were Algeria. Jordan, Oman, Egypt, Iraq and Sudan.
The case of Tunisia- Triumph of the protests
The Arab Spring falls under the third wave of democracy which was due to the decrease of legitimacy of authoritarian regimes and an increased expectation of periodic and competitive elections, as Huntington argued about the formation of such states. The revolution which
1. Andrey V. Korotayev, Leonid M. Issaev, Sergey Yu. Malkov, & Alisa R. Shishkina. (2014). The Arab Spring: A Quantitative Analysis. Arab Studies Quarterly, 36(2), 149–169.
2. https://www.britannica.com/event/Jasmine-Revolution
3. Stepan, J. Linz. (2013). Democratization Theory and the “Arab Spring” . Journal of Democracy, Volume 24, Number 2, April 2013, pp. 15-30 (Article) .
sprung in Tunisia was named the Jasmine revolution. The uprising took to mainstream with the self-immolation of Bouazizi outside a municipal office in the town of Sidi Bouzid on December 17, 2010. This act by Bouazizi symbolised the economic hardships and injustice faced by the citizens under the rule of Ben Ali. The protests led to violent clashes between protestors and police and troops were deployed by the government to control the unrest in the capital of Tunis and surrounding regions. This excessive force of the government led to the killing of several protests and thus, drew international criticism. Ben Ali appeared on national television on January 13, 2011 to express regret over the killings and announced future concessions on food prices and restriction on Internet use. But it all turned futile because the protestors were not satisfied with the concessions which further led to clashes and several protesters were killed. A state of emergency was declared on January 14, 2011 and the government had been dissolved and the legislative elections were to be held in the next six months. This equally failed in reducing the unrest and thus, Ben Ali had to step down as the president and leave the country. Tunisia was in chaos after Ben Ali’s departure and the protests continued with outbreaks of violence attempted by Ben Ali loyalists. The former Prime Minister Ghannouchi announced the formation of a new unity government. He announced that his interim government would act quickly to establish economic stability and political freedom in the state. The interim government lifted the ban on opposition political parties, granted freedom to all political prisoners and officially suspended all (Democratic Constitutional Rally) RCD activities (Ben Ali’s party). This began the arduous journey of democratic transition in the state. A new constitution was drafted in 2014 despite the differences between secularists and Islamists. The new government allowed for free speech and open criticism of those in power. In October–November 2019, Tunisia completed its first peaceful transfer of power from one democratically
elected government under the new constitution. The power of the Tunisians’ collective voice to depose dictators and help establish a successful democracy is the revolution’s greatest achievement. And Tunisia in 2012, became the first Arab country in more than three decades to receive a ranking of 3 or better for political rights on the seven-point “Freedom House” scale (in which 1 is most free and 7 is the least free)4.
Egypt: A Military takeover
A different scenario emerged in Egypt where the protests led to military takeover of the government. Demonstrations were organised by protesters who took hold of the capital city of Cairo. The protesters demanded for Hosni Mubarak, the President of the country since 1981, to step down immediately. Mubarak’s regime retaliated to these demands by resorting to violent tactics against the protesters. This led to the death of several protesters. When this measure failed, Hosni Mubarak attempted to promise concessions and pledged to step down at the end of his term in 2011. All these measures did nothing and after almost three weeks of protests, Mubarak stepped down as the President. This made most local and international observers believe that Egypt was on the trail towards a democracy. But the elections that happened after this proved otherwise. The election of Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party led to extreme violence and polarisation of civilians. The protests in 2013 led to General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi seizing power in a military coup. Since then, the military regime has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians, imprisonment of many more, and led to the crackdown on the civil society and media5. Thus,
4. Andrey V. Korotayev, Leonid M. Issaev, Sergey Yu. Malkov, & Alisa R. Shishkina. (2014). The Arab Spring: A Quantitative Analysis.
5. https://www.britannica.com/event/Egypt-Uprising-of-2011
Egypt proclaiming itself as a ‘democratic republic’ is a lie underneath which military rule exists, making it a hybrid government.
Bahrain: Shutdown of the protests
Protests in Bahrain included the Shia majority demanding for political freedom and participation. A police raid commissioned by the government led to the death of several protesters. This escalated the intensity between the government and the protesters. The protesters now went on to demand the ending of the Bahraini monarchy. This led to the most intense period of the movement when the Saudi Arabian government sent 1,000 troops into the country, responding to the Bahraini monarchy’s request for aid. Protests continued until the year 2014 and the Bahraini government successfully suppressed the protests despite receiving international condemnation. Later, the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry released a statement that the government used psychological abuse, systematic torture and committed other human rights violations in response to the uprising6. Thus, Bahrain remains a classic example of suppression of movements for democracy.
Libya, Yemen and Syria: Arenas of Civil Wars
Major anti-government protests took place in Libya shortly after the beginning of the Arab Spring. The leader of the country then was Muhammar al-Qadhafi and he decided to crack down on the protests violently. This led to a situation of civil war of a damaging intensity. This made the United Nations come into the picture which authorised air and naval intervention by other countries. After several months of protests, al-Qadhafi’s government fell in mid-2011. His government was replaced by an interim government which took full power in 2012. In
6. https://guides.library.illinois.edu/c.php?g=348276&p=2346880
2014, a series of complex events led to a devastating second civil war in Libya. Fights broke out after a series of military coup attempts made by Libyan General Khalifa Haftar. The civil war went on for six straight years, from 2014-2020. The civilians are caught in a state of chaos and war, and are still fighting for bringing back stability in the country.
The situation in Yemen is no different. The Yemeni Revolution that sprung to action during the Arab Spring continued as peaceful protests until it faced an armed confrontation that led to an indefinite civil war. Thousands of protesters took to the road demanding for the overthrow of the regime of President Ali Abdullah Saleh. On 2 February, Saleh announced that he would neither run for re-election in 2013 nor pass on the power to his son. The protests eventually grew in magnitude and intensity but claimed thousands of Yemeni civilian lives. This led to instability and concern among international actors and persuaded President Saleh to resign from power. Saleh flew to Saudi Arabia for treatment, thus ending his 33-year-long rule. The civil war situation aggravated because of international actors and extremist religious groups. United States, Gulf countries and Saudi Arabia supported the President and were at war with the Houthis (Islamist political and armed movement). During this time, Al-Qaeda and ISIS were fighting every group to create their base in the country. The power struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran was the primary cause for the civil war to last. All this led to a devastating and unimaginable human crisis in Yemen. The killings and violent attacks still continue. International aid for the civilians is stolen by various groups preventing it from reaching the needy.
The Syrian civil war and refugee crisis are infamous international events. The escalation
of tensions between Bashar al- Assad’s government and its opposition were the reason for the civil war to erupt. The activity of foreign players in the arena; the United States and Russia, are the major reasons of concern. Syria takes the centre stage as the longest and the bloodiest conflict of the Arab Spring. Protesters demanded the resignation of President Assad. Violence was escalating with the rebel forces fighting government forces and taking control of large cities, towns and villages. The armed conflict displayed divisions in Syrian society. Most Syrians are Sunni Muslims but Syria’s military and security establishments were dominated by the members of the Alawi sect (Assad’s community). Sectarianism was a major reason for the civil war to worsen. Help from international actors paradoxically intensified the situation. Some states supported Syria in the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and ISIS but encouragement for Assad’s regime was ambiguous. Russia joined the conflict in 2015 and became the ally of the Assad regime while the US supported the opposition to the Assad government. Thus, the country till date is facing the consequences of these oversights with a massive refugee crisis affecting millions.
Reasons for the unpredictable democratic transitions
All the above-mentioned states strived for the same outcome- a democratic state. Why was it not possible despite the protests that emerged from the same uprising? Based on the events that took place during the Arab Spring, three cases are illuminated; the relationship between democracy and religion, the character of hybrid regimes and the nature of authoritarian rule and its implications for transitions to democracy. Religion has always played a considerable role in all waves of democratisation despite its reduced presence in the third wave.
But this was not the case with the Arab world where democratic transitions took a centre stage in the 21st century. The Arab world is dominated by Islam and Samuel P. Huntington argued controversially that “religion, especially Islam would set major limits to further democratisation”7. For democracy and religion to flourish together, “twin toleration” must exist, as Alfred Stepan had suggested8. It is a situation where religious authorities do not control democratic officials and vice versa. On the other hand, some countries follow “positive accommodation” of state-religion relations. The crucial point is multiple forms of secularism can be adopted for a successful democratic transition but states misstep. There are examples of successful Muslim-majority countries in the Arab world like Turkey, Albania, Indonesia and Senegal. Even Tunisia was successful in doing so by accommodating differences between secularists and Islamists. Islam sectarianism in Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt were an example of religious groupings not allowing democratic transitions.
Successful democratic transitions do not occur in a few countries because the state is fundamentally undemocratic which makes it believe that core liberal-democratic values could only be saved if secular liberals cut a deal with a non-democratic source of power, i.e., military. This was what happened with Egypt. Despite the protests, Egypt has leaned towards an authoritarian-democratic hybrid. And the same occurs with other failed democracies turned military states like Myanmar.
The nature of authoritarian rule in the state equally affects the nature of transition. And
7. Stepan, J. Linz. (2013). Democratization Theory and the “Arab Spring” . Journal of Democracy, Volume 24, Number 2, April 2013, pp. 15-30 (Article) .
8. Andrey V. Korotayev, Leonid M. Issaev, Sergey Yu. Malkov, & Alisa R. Shishkina. (2014). The Arab Spring: A Quantitative Analysis. Arab Studies Quarterly, 36(2), 149–169.
the nature of authority prevalent in the Arab world was ‘Sultanism’. According to Weber, “sultanism tends to arise…when domination develops an administration and military force which are purely personal instruments of the master”9. These states operate primarily at the discretion of the Sultan. Before the Arab upheavals of 2011, the regimes in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Egypt and Tunisia displayed various degrees/features of sultanism. Libya under Qadhafi was the most sultanistic and thus, had a major impact on the movement. Gaddafi created, dismantled and re-created commands and security structures at will. His sons were the possible successor, Sultans. It took a civil war, bombing campaigns of rebel powers and intervention of UN-based NATO to topple Qadhafi’s regime. But this did not ensure “monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a given territory”, as Weber stated for a democratic state to be successful. And it is evident that a democratic state is not possible in Libya any soon.
The cases explained above hold true to several other states. Failure of the progression to a democracy could include religious domination, severity of authoritarianism, existence of hybrid regimes, absence of the growth of strong opposition and many more subjective reasons.
The testimony for a successful democratic progression
It is evident that despite sincere attempts, many states cannot shift to a successful democracy because of various reasons stated above. But there are a few primary roots to make it possible. Social, civil and political forces along with the leaders are key to their countries’ successful transitions. The movements and protesters must realise that democracy is a work in
___________________________________________________________________________
9. Andrey V. Korotayev, Leonid M. Issaev, Sergey Yu. Malkov, & Alisa R. Shishkina. (2014). The Arab Spring: A Quantitative Analysis. Arab Studies Quarterly, 36(2), 149–169.
progress and the transitions must fundamentally focus on the distribution of power and the practice of politics. The first aspect these movements must focus on is to prepare the ground for a democratic progression. The protests and movements must first gain enough public support to challenge the authoritarian regime’s capacity to govern and position itself as a possible contender for power. They have to work towards eroding the authoritarian regime’s national and international legacy. Taking our narrowed down case of the Arab Spring among several other democratic movements, Tunisia was successful in preparing such a ground. With the help of a strong civilian base and social media, it made sure that the Tunisian authoritarian regime received international criticism. The movement needs to compromise on certain aspects of the state’s functioning to achieve vital democratic values. The dangers that lie in a refusal to compromise were clear in the case of Egypt. During the Muslim Brotherhood's brief reign, the group insisted on an Islamist agenda as it drafted a new constitution, and this alienated large swathes of the population.
The second important aspect is persevering civilians and security. There is more beyond toppling an authoritarian regime, i.e., governing it. Transitions often face pressure to clean house entirely and start anew but that should not be favoured. The new democratic regime must try to hold on to the institutional roots of the predecessor regime. India adopted the same policy when it decided on keeping the British Parliamentary regime and its political institutions because the civilians were familiar with its working and accustomed to it. Trying to establish everything from the scratch is not always a good decision. Not only this, the reformers should also bring all the security services under democratic civilian control at the earliest. Failure to do so brings in threat of the military or rebellion takeover of the state like Egypt and Syria respectively. Democratic reformers should place senior military commanders under the direct
authority of civilian ministers of defence, and insist that active-duty military officers refrain entirely from political involvement. The continued supremacy that the Egyptian military enjoys over any elected institution lies at the heart of Egypt's failed democratic transition. And in countries as diverse as Gambia, Myanmar, and Thailand, the absence of civilian authority over the security forces remains the most important obstacle to a successful democratic transition.
The third aspect is the constitutional challenge. The reformers must focus on making the democratic regime credible and popular among the civilians. Thus, the state must develop electoral procedures that reflect the will of the majority and reassure them that the core concerns of the citizens will be respected under the rule of law. For this, a wide range of participants should be involved in drafting a constitution that addresses the central concerns of all the sections of the society. The process must include supporters of the former regime, who will need assurances that their rights will be respected under the rule of law. The new leaders should establish transparent legal processes.
The fourth aspect is checks and balances. The democratic state must ensure all the organs of the government have fixed functions and do not intervene with each other. An independent judiciary that holds the executive accountable without blocking too many new initiatives and free and responsible media can help entrench a sustainable democracy. Political parties, efficient bureaucracy, sound law and order are few of the many components which are required for a rewarding democracy. The transitioned states must also realise that one of their primary concerns is achieving economic stability because these states have faced economic repression under authoritarian rule. The state needs to bring in economic reforms, reduce poverty and unemployment to promote long-term growth and macroeconomic stability.
___________________________________________________________________________
Finally, the growing importance of media also plays a pivotal role in bringing in lucrative transitions in the 21st century. New actors, technologies, economic pressures, and geopolitical dynamics have transformed today's democratic transitions. Mobile phones, internet and social media have made it possible for reshaping public opinion and mustering international support within no time. This could be seen during the Tunisian revolution where the protesters recorded the happenings of the movement, recorded police violence and brought in international coverage of the happenings. Thus, this movement was also called the “Social / Facebook” revolution10.
Conclusion
Thus, it is evident from the findings above that the end result of a movement for democracy is unknown but that does not kill the spirit for a change. Democracy will always be the most sought-after and popular form of state that considers the opinion of the citizens. And this means that revolutions will keep happening until change takes place. The above-mentioned reasons for failure and success of a democratic transition must be kept in mind by future states to make an assured impact.
10. https://www.britannica.com/event/Jasmine-Revolution
References
Stepan, J. Linz. (2013). Democratization Theory and the “Arab Spring” . Journal of Democracy, Volume 24, Number 2, April 2013, pp. 15-30 (Article) .
Andrey V. Korotayev, Leonid M. Issaev, Sergey Yu. Malkov, & Alisa R. Shishkina. (2014). The Arab Spring: A Quantitative Analysis. Arab Studies Quarterly, 36(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.13169/arabstudquar.36.2.0149
Zuber, Moussa. (2018). Arab Spring as a background of civil war in Syria. International Conference KNOWLEDGE-BASED ORGANIZATION Vol. XXIV No 1 2018
Al-Tamimi, Adeb. (2020). Arab Spring in Yemen: Causes and Consequences. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353827749_ARAB_SPRING_IN_YEMEN_CAUSES_AND_CONSEQUENCES?enrichId=rgreq-ff4b1e6a9527c1ace1e6b95807674aa9-
Lowenthal, A. F., & Bitar, S. (2016). Getting to Democracy: Lessons from Successful Transitions. Foreign Affairs, 95(1), 134–144. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43946633
Online resources
https://www.britannica.com/event/Jasmine-Revolution
https://www.britannica.com/event/Egypt-Uprising-of-2011
https://guides.library.illinois.edu/c.php?g=348276&p=2346880
Comments
Post a Comment