<http://www.bitterlemons-international.org/previous.php?opt=1&id=186#761> Edition 25 Volume 5 - June 28, 2007 North Africa: the dilemma of the secularists Anouar Boukhars
The absence of competitive-democratic patterns in North Africa cannot be ascribed solely to the actions of the undemocratic regimes of the region. The latter have certainly done very little to strengthen brittle governance structures, deepen government accountability and widen the scope of participatory politics. But this cannot fully explain the enduring democratic deficit that still plagues North Africa. In fact neither the intimidating coercive capacity of the state nor the fear of the formidable powers of political Islam can account fully for the durability and resilience of state authoritarianism.
The problem of democracy in North Africa is the weakness of secular parties and their inability to mobilize mass constituencies. Their organizational inefficacy and inability or unwillingness to lead meaningful tangible reforms have largely discredited them in the eyes of populations increasingly depoliticized and tempted by radicalism. In all the countries of North Africa, secular parties appear stuck and trapped in political decrepitude. With few exceptions, they have failed to take advantage of opportunities to press for improvements in governance and accountability. Even those allowed to serve in government have demonstrated a troubling ambivalence toward reform. Most secular parties are so weak and scared of losing "power" and privilege to a vibrant and dynamic Islamist movement that many of them have sacrificed the ideals they once stood for.
In North Africa, secular parties suffer from a number of structural deficits that underline their current intellectual, political, and organizational stagnation. Despite all their rhetoric in defense of democracy and reform of fossilized institutions, they are uncertain about how to come out of their own institutional stasis and break their political stagnation. The absence of even a semblance of a vision for the future and an inability to offer effective and coherent alternatives to a failed status quo reflect a disquieting reality of secular politics in North Africa. Whether working from within the state apparatus or outside it, secular parties have proven unwilling to venture beyond the top-down nature of state-managed liberalization for fear of alienating the regimes they ironically need in order to survive politically and compete against the ascendancy of moderate Islamist movements.
Therein lies the dilemma of secular liberal and leftist parties: how do they escape acquiescing to authoritarian regime diktats without sinking into political obsolescence? Or how would they survive the onslaught of moderate Islamism without allying themselves with undemocratic regimes determined to crush any challengers to the status quo? Secular parties are keenly aware of their weaknesses and inability to compete with better organized Islamist movements. They are equally aware that to translate their lofty rhetoric into reality, they need reach out to moderate Islamists. For now, however, most secular parties prefer holding on to their privileges by being close to authoritarian regimes rather than collaborating with powerful Islamist reformers to help strengthen the rule of law and the capacities of political institutions.
Today most parties, whether in office or in opposition, claim they are democratic. In reality they represent almost everything they once stood against. Most are in collusion with regimes they once abhorred. Of course, secular parties would like their shrinking constituencies and the public at large to understand the rationale behind their tactical support of undemocratic regimes. Support for state secular authoritarianism is seen as necessary to stem the tide of religious "fundamentalism". But secular parties are not just concerned about radical Islamism. What they are really worried about is their growing irrelevance and inability to compete with even moderate Islamist movements in a free, democratic environment.
In countries like Morocco, the historical secular opposition parties that are today in power have lost so much of their prestige and reputation that without gerrymandering of the electoral system and manipulation of district lines, they might end up being trounced in the forthcoming election by the moderate Justice and Development Party (PJD). If King Mohamed VI were to outlaw the PJD, he would have the full support of most secular parties, especially those who stood for decades against his father's reign of terror.
As the case of Morocco clearly demonstrates, secular parties are mainly interested in pursuit of narrow self-interest. They allow themselves to be used and abused by regimes whose sole focus is self-preservation and maintenance of the status quo. All North African rulers accentuate the fear of Islamism and play on secular parties' insecurities to consolidate their hold on power and propagate the perception that they, and only they, can act as a bulwark against religious fundamentalism.
For now, secular parties are unwilling to move beyond their comfort zone despite the damage that their close association with the current status quo has done to their reputation. But for the sake of stability, democracy and progress, secular parties need to reform and democratize themselves. Their internal lack of transparency and debate has done incalculable damage to their efficacy. The development of strong secular parties would serve the interests of the people of North Africa, not because they are better poised to reform their countries than the moderate Islamists, but because political pluralism is necessary to put pressure on authoritarian governments and especially to prevent a lapse back into further deliberalization.
Anouar Boukhars is assistant professor of political science and director of the Center for Defense and Security Policy at Wilberforce University. He is also editor of the Wilberforce Quarterly Journal.
<http://www.bitterlemons-international.org/previous.php?opt=1&id=186#760> Continued decline is not inevitable Marina Ottaway
Secular parties independent of governments are experiencing a deep crisis in most Arab countries. The decline affects liberal and socialist-oriented parties alike. While the crisis is real, continued decline is not inevitable: there still exist in the Arab world large potential constituencies that are disenchanted with incumbent regimes but not willing to commit to Islamist parties either.
The crucial question is whether secular parties can develop programs and form organizations capable of capturing some of those uncommitted constituencies. Unless secular parties revive, politics in the Arab world will turn increasingly into a confrontation between authoritarian or semi-authoritarian regimes on one side and Islamist movements on the other. This will encourage extremism on both sides and reduce the chances for meaningful political reform.
Secular parties--that is parties that do not explicitly derive their ideology from Islam, but are not necessarily anti-Islamic or anti-religion--played a central role in Arab politics in the past. Liberal and socialist parties were important actors in nationalist movements, with liberal parties such as the Wafd in Egypt being most influential before World War II and socialist-oriented parties like the Algerian FLN acquiring greater prominence in the 1950s and 1960s. Secular without being militantly secularists, such parties were widely accepted not only by intellectuals but also by people for whom Islam remained the central cultural and religious reference point. The ideas secular parties stood for, be they independence, social and economic change, development or Arab nationalism, resonated among the population, and their secularism was not a significant issue.
But today secular parties do not have distinctive ideologies or political programs. Parties that still have the word socialist in their name no longer push socialist ideas or solutions, but embrace market economics and liberal democracy. So do liberal parties. Incumbent governments pay lip-service to the dominant economic and political ideas of the post-Cold War era, even when they have no intention of following them in practice. Without distinctive ideologies or programs to attract a following, secular parties have become defensive about their identity. In fact, most do not want to be identified as secular, protesting instead their attachment to and respect for Islam.
Liberal and socialist parties in the Arab world objectively face a difficult situation. Islamic organizations and movements have become much stronger and exert a strong influence on social norms and popular culture everywhere. Governments, worried about the rise of Islamist parties, curb the activities of all independent political organizations and make it difficult for all parties to operate rather than seeking allies among secular groups. But secular parties have compounded the problem by their failure to craft coherent programs and devise organizational strategies.
Indeed, secular parties are at their weakest organizationally. Islamist parties have dedicated years, even decades, to the painstaking work of building political structures and membership rolls, while secular parties have neglected such activities. Furthermore, many intellectuals have deserted political parties altogether, choosing instead to form civil society organizations as a means of influencing public debates and policy. But civil society organizations are not a substitute for political parties in election-based political systems, and civil society organizations have little influence on parliaments where pro-government forces are dominant and Islamists are the main opposition. Nor have attempts to bypass organizational weaknesses by direct action in the street to put pressure on the government been effective. The Kiffaya movement in Egypt lasted for the brief span of an election campaign and atrophied thereafter.
Secular parties are also weak on the policy front. While some Islamist organizations like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and the Moroccan Party for Justice and Development have started building up their expertise on concrete policy issues, secular parties are more likely to focus on abstract issues that do not necessarily resonate with the public. For example, the secular Moroccan parties that joined the government in 1997, some of their officials admit, have focused much of their attention on their relations with the palace and have missed opportunities to influence policy.
The conditions of secular parties are discouraging, but their continued decline is not inevitable. Except in Gulf countries, Arab political systems are today based on multi-party elections. Even if elections are manipulated, voters do play a role. And judging by the high degree of absenteeism, voters in most countries are not happy with the choices they are offered. In Egypt, for example, at most a quarter of eligible voters go to the polls. Many voters, probably most, are today uncaptured either by the political machine of the incumbent government or by that of Islamist parties. There is a demand for parties with new ideas and programs. The question is whether secular parties can reform themselves sufficiently to satisfy it.- Published 28/6/2007 (c) bitterlemons-international.org
Marina Ottaway is director of the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. -- Yoshie