Will Democracy Work in the Middle East?

President Bush recently declared America's commitment to democracy in the Middle East. But democracy there and in other regions has not had much success. There are solid reasons for this failure.

by Melvin Rhodes

The words "democracy" and "democratic" have been much abused. During all the years that I lived with my family in Ghana, there were two German embassies in our neighborhood. One was the embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, which is still there. But, on the corner of a busy junction in the capital city of Accra, lay the heavily protected embassy of the German Democratic Republic.

This building represented the communist state of East Germany. Perhaps the bars on the windows and the barbed wire at the top of high walls were as much to keep the employees in as to keep intruders out. It was often said that the GDR wasn't "German" or "democratic," nor was it a "republic," but countries can call themselves what they want. North Korea's official name, for example, is the "Democratic Peoples' Republic of North Korea."

What is a democracy?

Highlighting this important distinction was the recent Commonwealth meeting in Nigeria, where sharp differences emerged over how to handle the behavior of Zimbabwe's president. By any Western definition, Zimbabwe is a dictatorship. The president can do what he likes. The country does have a parliament, but so did Iraq under Saddam Hussein. A year ago, Iraq's parliament backed him 100 percent.

Zimbabwe's neighbor is Zambia. The Zambian president's comment on the Commonwealth dispute was rather interesting. He said Western democracies should remember that their democratic systems took centuries to evolve, so they should be more patient with Africa. Well, maybe, but if a country is going to call itself a democracy, it should be one, if only to avoid confusion.

Democracy is defined in my 1982 Collins Standard Reference Dictionary as "government in which the people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives; a country, state, etc. with such government; majority rule; the principle of equality of rights, opportunity, etc., or the practice of this principle."

The phrase, "majority rule," brought back my own memories of Zimbabwe. We lived there in the 1970s at a time when there was much talk of "majority rule."

At the time the country was the breakaway British colony of Southern Rhodesia. Northern Rhodesia had been given its independence as the Republic of Zambia in 1964. But following independence, corruption and dictatorship soon became the norm, with the resultant rapid economic slide backwards.

Faced with such a bleak future, Southern Rhodesia's white population declared itself independent of Britain the following year, 1965. The world wanted to see "majority rule," so economic and political sanctions were imposed to try to enforce this.

Less than 15 years later the Republic of Zimbabwe was born following a bitter civil war that lasted seven years. It wasn't simply a black-and-white issue—78 percent of the Rhodesian military was black. Many Africans were just as concerned about a future African government as most whites were— the record elsewhere in Africa had not been a good one. Sadly, it remains that way still.

Britain's legacy of parliaments

All Britain's former colonies (except for Hong Kong, which was leased from China, and Somaliland, which was British for only a brief period of time) had a parliament. Britain is often called "the mother of parliaments." The British parliament has been meeting for almost 800 years.

Before the Normans invaded England in 1066 and imposed a more dictatorial form of monarchy, the old English kingdom had an advisory council of nobles known as the Witan. The ideal is also expressed in stories of the sixth-century British King Arthur and his "Knights of the Round Table," which signified that no one person seated there was more important than any of the others.

Interestingly, emphasizing the difference between Britain and its continental neighbors, "the Roman Church strongly and repeatedly condemned Round Tables" (Paul Johnson, The Offshore Islanders, 1972, p. 51). The church believed that the king was appointed by God and could do what he wanted.

A long tradition of democracy has existed in Great Britain, and the British took their parliamentary democratic system with them wherever they went. As each colony was settled, almost immediately a parliament was established so that the settlers could debate issues of common concern and make any necessary decisions. In time, members of the native population were also admitted to the parliament.

In Rhodesia there were five qualifications for voting and participating in the national parliamentary system at the time I lived there. Although I was white, I did not qualify—but many of my African friends did.

The five qualifications were: citizenship, literacy (one must be able to read and write English, the national language), military service (for males), property ownership and payment of income tax. There was no racial qualification. Both Africans and Europeans sat in parliament, the latter being in the majority.

African nationalist politicians campaigned on the slogan of "one man, one vote," meaning that everyone should be able to vote regardless of education or income. The fear of those already voting was that this would lead to tribal conflict and mob rule—which is exactly what it did lead to in much of the continent.

Too often "one man, one vote" led to just that—one man with a vote, that man being the new post-independence president who soon became president-for-life. Under this "democratic" system, no other votes count. Elections may be held, but all too frequently they are rigged.

Ghana's slide into dictatorship

Ghana, to which I frequently travel, is typical of political developments immediately following independence.

The richest and most successful of Britain's African colonies, the Colony of the Gold Coast became the independent nation of Ghana on March 6, 1957. There had been a functioning parliament in the country since the 19th century. As more and more Africans were educated and prospered, the voting base widened and the colony's parliament had a black majority. For six years prior to independence the country had an indigenous chief executive, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, whose dream was total independence.

When the new constitution was being worked out with the colonial authorities in London, the British and Gold Coast (Ghanaian) representatives wanted to ensure that parliamentary government (democracy) would continue after independence. The British system of checks and balances had worked well for centuries, longer than any other. It had been successfully exported to other countries, notably Canada, Australia and New Zealand. So a similar system was designed for Ghana.

Of significance, during the discussions on the new constitution, Nkrumah made the comment that "I can ride a coach and horses through this constitution if I want to."

That's exactly what happened. In less than two years the tie with the Crown had been severed, followed a year later by a parliamentary vote that proclaimed the new leader "president for life." One more year and parliament was abolished. In four years, a parliamentary system that had lasted for a century was gone. One man with his one vote now ruled the country.

Zimbabwe follows the same pattern

In Zimbabwe a parliament still exists, but it simply rubberstamps the decisions of the president. However, having a parliament does at least give the appearance of being a democracy. There are dozens of such "democracies" around the world, democracies that no Western visitor would recognize as such.

Before "majority rule" in Zimbabwe, Rhodesia had a free press. The two main daily newspapers constantly criticized the government, which the rest of the world had condemned as "racist" and even "fascist" (even though free elections were still held right up until the end of Rhodesia).

When an election was held, under British supervision with international observers, to choose a government for the new "majority-rule" Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe led his ZANU-PF party to victory. It was to be the country's last truly free election.

Tribalism was a major factor in the election, with the majority Shona gaining power. Soon tens of thousands of the minority Ndebele tribe would be massacred by Zimbabwean troops trained in the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea.

Corruption became a problem overnight. Within two weeks of "majority rule," policemen were wanting bribes. Government officials were soon diverting funds. Eventually, leading members of the government were given prosperous farms seized from their former white owners.

As the new owners were not interested in agricultural production, food supplies fell and people were left starving. Food aid contributed from Western donor nations enables the government to continue in power, as the food is only distributed to the president's loyal supporters.

Will Iraq be different?

The big question now is: Will Iraq and other nations of the Middle East be different? President Bush recently said that "in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," going on to declare that America would help spread democracy throughout the Middle East. Right now, not one of the 22 Arab states in the region is a Western-style democracy.

When the former Ottoman Empire was carved up following World War I, the British were given responsibility for Iraq under the League of Nations. Britain established a constitutional monarchy in Iraq, British style. It lasted until it was violently overthrown in 1958 in a bloodthirsty revolution that eventually led to Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.

An interesting observation was made recently about Iraq's democratic period. A Dec. 20 article in London's Financial Times, titled "Man with a Mission," profiled Ahmed Chalabi, Iraq's most prominent face at this time. He is the spokesman for the Iraqi National Council on which he sits. After 45 years in exile following the 1958 coup, he is now back in Iraq.

"Tamara Daghistani, a close friend," was asked "what she thinks has kept Chalabi committed to Iraq for all those years of exile and she says her generation yearns to recapture a golden age for Iraq in the more liberal and tolerant 1940s and 1950s."

Chalabi himself spent those exile years in both Britain and the United States. His observations on America are interesting. In the same article he states: "It's easy to be an American ... it's a welcoming place and people are generally straightforward and open. I saw the good sides of being free, and I saw the idiotic sides. You can make stupid decisions but ... it's better than anything else ... There are winners and losers. But the losers don't get killed and the winners don't own everything" (emphasis added).

Here we begin to see why some countries cannot prosper. In many countries political opponents are arrested, tortured and shot, often along with their wives and children, thereby removing all possible future opposition. Their property is then seized. Even when this doesn't happen, leaders will often take everything for themselves.

In Africa, elected officials often divert national funds to their own (foreign) bank accounts. They may also rig the next election, thereby making it impossible for them to be removed from office through peaceful means. Removal by violence can only be done by the military, with resultant years of military dictatorship.

Divided interests, divided nations

It's not just Africa and the Middle East that have these problems. Recent developments in Russia show that the country's president, Vladimir Putin, is becoming more dictatorial. Recently he ordered the arrest of the country's richest business tycoon, an arrest that caused an immediate 10 percent plunge of the country's stock exchange amid fears the government would seize more people and property.

The challenge for coalition forces in Iraq is this: After imposing a democratic system on the nation, will it hold?

The failure of most new nations lies in the reality that they cannot successfully transition peacefully from one administration to another.

Some cultures seem to need a strong man to maintain order. This is problematic in many ways. Naturally, as in Russia, this leads to a more dictatorial form of government.

But in most countries it will also lead to tribal or religious conflict. A strong man in Africa, for example, must come from one tribe, which alienates all the other tribes. Tribal custom demands that he grant favors to his own tribe over others. This then leads to resentment, which in turn leads to rebellion. One third of all the countries in Africa right now are embroiled in civil wars, disputes that often have their origins in the tribal divisions within each nation. Add corruption to this, and it's a recipe for disaster.

Iraq will likely be no exception. It has three dominant groups in the country, the majority Shia or Shiite Muslims, the Sunni Muslims and the Kurds, an ethnically different people. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim who persecuted the majority Shias.

Under a system of "one man, one vote," the Shias will inevitably dominate the next government and a Shia likely will be president. This could lead to a theocratic government as in neighboring Iran. Saddam Hussein, in contrast, was antireligious most of the time (finding religion towards the end, as so many do, partly because he needed support). It will be a sad irony if the new elected government of Iraq ultimately becomes an Iranian-style theocracy, America's worst nightmare come true.

The Kurds are another complicating factor. Each of these three main groups wants to control the country and its oil wealth. Yet none of them have the same cultural ideals that have helped preserve democracy in the Anglo-Saxon world.

Will democracy lead to chaos?

It appears likely that the presence of coalition forces will guarantee a constitutional government for a while—as did Britain's earlier presence in Iraq and in its colonies. For as long as a British governor was present, parliamentary government worked. But as soon as that governor was gone, along with British troops, democracy was threatened.

The reason for this is inherent cultural differences. For democracy to succeed, effective checks and balances must exist. There must also be a free press and an independent judiciary—for if the government controls the courts, then political opponents can be imprisoned simply for disagreeing.

In the British and American systems, as the Zambian president pointed out, these things evolved over centuries.

Often overlooked today is the influence of the Bible in the gradual emergence of the Anglo-American democratic model (although Western democracy is not necessarily the biblical ideal). The publication of the King James Version of the Bible four centuries ago revolutionized political thinking.

Prior to the Protestant Reformation, the established Roman Church taught that people could only go to God through a priest—who was also the only one authorized to read the Scriptures. Once people could read their Bibles themselves, they learned that they should "work out [their] own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12).

This was a revolutionary concept with unexpected political consequences. In less than a century after the publication of the King James Bible, England's politics went through major turmoil, including a civil war, the execution of a king, a period of dictatorship and a bloodless revolution. But a more democratic system was the end result.

The foundation for right governing

A right knowledge and understanding of the Word of God should be required for all leaders. Notice God's requirement for leaders as spelled out in His Word: "When you come to the land which the LORD your God is giving you,... and say, 'I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' ... he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book ... and it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes" (Deuteronomy 17:14-19).

Israel's King Solomon asked God for wisdom and discernment when he ascended the throne. "You have made Your servant king ..., but I am a little child; I do not know how to go out or come in ... Therefore give to Your servant an understanding heart to judge Your people, that I may discern between good and evil. For who is able to judge this great people of Yours?" (1 Kings 3:7-9).

Jesus Christ, soon to return as the world's first perfect leader, taught a different approach to governance: "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:25-28).

Self-seeking, tyrannical, despotic and authoritarian rule, with its consistent proclivity for abusing people, is wrong. Leaders should rather emulate Christ's example of service, serving people rather than abusing them and serving themselves. This is the kind of leadership the world will experience under Christ's loving reign in the world tomorrow. GN

 

[ Return to Table of Contents ] [ View next article ]