A few things on Morocco

My pal Shadi Hamid at Democracy Arsenal, who is trying his best to become an ex-pal, recently posted some comments on the political situation in Morocco. Among his points are that the main obstacle to democracy in Morocco problem is the King, and that the PJD is simply going to be more pro-regime with new Sec-Gen Abdelilah Benkirane. Along the way, he calls U.S. democracy efforts “cosmetic” and singles out a particular program working with the Moroccan Parliament… which happens to be a program I am familiar with (Shadi – why don’t you come to Morocco and see what these programs are really about? Or are you afraid that once you leave the Mashrik for the Maghrib you’ll never go back…).

Indeed, the greatest hindrance to democracy is the institution of the Monarchy, no matter how liberal a particular king may be. Sure, the country has been changing, as one of your readers suggests, but not a single ounce of power has shifted hands in the past 9 years. The presence of the Monarchy, which can only be criticized by some people on some occasions when they do not cross a vaguely pronounced line, and the political institutions it has set up, prevent real opposition from taking shape.

The “serious effort” required to make structural changes in Morocco is possible. Change often requires crisis, so imagine the U.S. attacks Iran. If the supply of oil is cut short and Morocco’s energy prices soar, food prices continue to soar, and more revelations of makhzenian lands being sold for well below market prices come to bear, then we have the recipe for a political opportunity. When opposition parties find it in their interest to confront the sources of power, they will do so. Of course, getting to that point is difficult…

From my standpoint, you are partially correct about Benkirane: he’s an ultra-social conservative who is Read the rest of this entry »

Kremlin Revives KGB Tactics to Subvert Civil Society

The use of security and intelligence services to monitor domestic populations is always a tricky issue for a democracy. In recent months, we in the U.S. have been wrestling with the degree to which the government can enlist the intelligence services to monitor domestic communications.

This week a bombshell was dropped in the Russian media. Alexander Novikov, a activist in the United Civil Front civil society group which opposes the authoritarian policies of Putin’s government, revealed that he was an informant for the FSB (formerly the KGB in the Soviet Union). According to his statements, he has been providing information to the FSB for more than two years regarding the planned activities and inner workings of the United Civil Front.

If these claims are true, the FSB would have clearly broken at 1995 law that forbids domestic intelligence services to spy domestic civil society organization that are not illegal. According to Mr. Novikov, he was paid approximately $200 per month to provide regular reports regarding the groups activities and insight into the leadership structure of the organization.

Apparently Mr. Novikov decided go public because he began to sympathize with the United Civil Front and their struggle against the Kremlin:

Gradually, Novikov began to sympathize with the opposition activists he was spying on, which sparked arguments with his FSB handlers, who called the activists “sick people” and “idiots,” he said. “I told them, ‘If these people are sick, why do you beat them? Why do you attack them with clubs?’” Novikov recalled.

Although I doubt this story will get much additional coverage in the Russian media besides the initial story in Novaya Gazeta, events like this should demonstrate to the Russian people that the Janus-faced Putin regime is hollowing out the soul of their society. Stability and freedom are not mutually exclusive. Russians can have their rights protected and succeed economically. The false strength provided by high-energy prices can not last. At some point, as the energy prices fall, so to will the scales from the Russia’s eyes as they realize the new monster they’ve helped to create by their acquiescence.

Yemen: Protesters Face Violence

For transitions theorists, Yemen is an interesting case that features a united opposition.  A couple years ago 5 opposition parties, led by the Islamist Islah Party and the Yemeni Socialist Party (YSP), created the Joint Meeting Parties and signed onto a shared political program (Arabic).  I challenge any Arab political party members, particularly those in Morocco, to give me a good reason for why his or her organization cannot team up with other opposition parties to draw together a pact of a similar nature.  Islah and the YSP were lethal enemies during the civil war that raged from 1994-97; no other political parties in the region come from such a violent past.  In the most recent elections, the 5 parties even agreed upon a candidate to challenge President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

The Joint Meeting Parties’ platform, to which I have linked above, is an excellent example of the type of game that other political organizations that participate in elections in autocratic states can learn from.  Rather than focusing on the ‘big issues’ that Islamists and Leftists may never see eye-to-eye on, this document is geared towards finding common ground on more technical and/or basic issues.  In other words, much of this document is about things that nearly anyone could agree upon; combating corruption, reforming the bloated bureaucracy, the need to foster economic growth, etc.  Despite how simple some of the amendments are, the platform has allowed for an impressive amount of coordination among the signatories and has provided a foundation for the building of trust and even friendship to take place across ideologies.  I had the opportunity to meet the leaders of the Islamist and Leftist parliamentary blocs at a conference in May and their mutual admiration was on display as they held hands (a sign of friendship in the Arab world) on their way to grabbing a pre-dinner snack.

I raise this now because I’ve been meaning to and because of an interesting development over in Yemen.  On Saturday, at least 4 people were killed as police officers clashed with protesters on the anniversary of the 44th anniversary of Yemen’s 14 October Revolution.  Al-Jazeera is reporting that the Saleh regime has threatened to close down the sattelite network’s Yemeni office if it broadcasts pictures of the event (sorry, it was only printed on the Arabic site).  Interestingly, Reuters has reported that “unidentified gunmen” were responsible for the incident and not the police.  But I guess that’s the type of news you get when you take the word of the police in an autocratic country.  I can’t say definitively that Al-Jazeera is right and Reuters is wrong, but Saleh doesn’t have much credibility… He’s like an Arab Dick Cheney.  On the Yemeni president’s website, Saleh is quoted as having said that “dialogue is open with all except those who trying to damage unification, stability and security of the nation.”  The principle underscoring this statement is one that Cheney and other right-wing American demagogues know well: when your position is unjustifiable, invoke the ‘national interest.’