An Opposing Model

In 1989 Francis Fukuyama penned The End of History. In it, Fukuyama argues that no other ideology or system of governance existed after the fall of the Soviet Union to compete with liberal, free market democracy.

This article in MacLeans challenges that assertion. It also questions the future of democracy…something a bit more worrying. (It’s a relatively long article, but definitely worth a read).

The author starts by talking about the end of Huntington’s Third Wave of democratization. To frequent readers of this blog (and most democracy literature) this comes as no shock. Indeed, the Third Wave is pretty much considered closed by most academics and professionals in the democracy field.

He then posits his evidence: the rise of China and Russia – liberal economy, closed political as alternative options for countries (and leaders) who loathe the idea of implementing democratic institutions that limit their power. He also refers to Hugo Chavez’s successes at undermining democratic institutions in Venezuela and the rise of political Islamism in the Middle East.

The lack of hugely repressive measures, the author argues, is further evidence of the ideological strength of these regimes. While Russia is notorious for silencing independent journalists critical of the regime; even though China continually develops new and fascinating ways of identifying and detaining protestors (remember the Olympics?); and while Hugo Chavez threatens to use tanks against regions that don’t vote for the candidate he supports (thankfully he never did that), the regimes engage in much less oppression than their Soviet predecessors.

The author cites two reasons for the decreased repressive measures: 1) nationalism (which I’ll get in to below), and 2) satisfaction: i.e. the majority of people are satisfied with the system of governance. They are willing to trade their political involvement for economic development, stability and order.

In my view, while the “satisfaction” factor is important, the real reason these non-democratic countries have decreased the use of repressive measures is the rise of nationalism/political Islamism. It is these two ideologies that are the real threat to democracy in the 21st century. And strangely enough, they’re not that different…
Read the rest of this entry »

A Saudi Shuffle

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy published this short piece regarding a sudden series of changes in Saudi Arabia’s ministries.  Interestingly enough, the changes are the first under King Abdullah, who ascended to the throne in 2005.

The key take-a-ways:

- Appointment of Prince Faisal as Minister of education.  Faisal is generally regarded as a progressive who founded a think tank to study opportunities for refom in higher education.  Faisal’s marriage to King Abdullah’s daughter suggests that he (and his policy suggestions) will enjoy special access to, and support from, the King.

- Appointment of the first woman deputy minister working in the Ministry of Education on Girls’ Affairs.

- Removal of the head of the Saudi clerical establishment, the Supreme Council of Justice.

- Removal of the head of the religious police, who is responsible for imposing strict Islamic lifestyles and controlling contact between the sexes.

- Appointment of a new head of the Council of Senior Clerics,  the body that provides religious cover for the decision of the Saudi royal family.

One potential reason for the shift might be that Saudi Arabia is starting to realize that they can no longer spread radicalism abroad without worrying about the impact on their own stability.  Traditionally, Saudi Arabia has funded extremists operations, and supported the spread of radical ideologies, as long as it happened outside their borders.  Recently, however, Yemeni extremists who consider the Saudi family a group of takfiris (apostates) have been creating trouble among the Saudi Shia minority and launching attacks within Saudi territorial borders.

Give it a read and see for yourself.  At the very least, these are developments of which we should all remain apprised.  They might suggest the beginning of a new path for Saudi Arabia if the House of Saud continues the reforms.

Democracy in the Arab World

Our friends over at the National Endowment for Democracy’s (NED) Democracy Digest posted a link to this article the other day concerning the prospects for democracy in the Arab world.

The author, Michael Mandelbaum, observes three “barriers to Arab democracy”:

1. A lack of liberty;
2. The religious/ethnic diversity of Arab countries;
3. Anti-Western sentiments

While all three arguments are interesting (and I recommend reading the article), I am particularly interested in the argument concerning liberty.  In an explanation sure to please Fareed Zakaria, Mandelbaum argues that without liberty, democracy is meaningless. 

The author contends that the lack of liberty in the Arab world is the consequence of two factors: 1) the failure to establish a free market economy; and 2) the predominant interpretation of Islam in the region. 

Read the rest of this entry »