Cosmetic Reform in Arab World Legitimizes Authoritarian Rule, Says New Carnegie Book
The vast array of reforms implemented by Arab governments over the last two decades have been superficial and designed to present a façade of reform while maintaining the concentration of power among authoritarian rulers.
Link Copied
Published on Jan 23, 2008
WASHINGTON, Jan 22—The vast array of reforms implemented by Arab governments over the last two decades have been superficial and designed to present a façade of reform while maintaining the concentration of power among authoritarian rulers, says a new book from the Carnegie Endowment. By imposing key elements of democracy—elections, parliaments, economic reform, human rights—without truly redistributing power, Arab governments have appeased the international community, who wish to promote democracy, without risking destabilization.
In Beyond the Façade: Political Reform in the Arab World, editors Marina Ottaway, director of the Carnegie Middle East Program, and Julia Choucair-Vizoso, a former Carnegie associate, analyze the reform process in ten countries—Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Palestine, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, and Yemen—and present the sources of and obstacles to political change in the Arab world.
Key Conclusions:
While Arab rulers widely acknowledge the need for reform, their rhetoric has not matched their record, focusing on modernization rather than democratization. There is no evidence to suggest that key modernization reforms, particularly economic improvements, will lead to democratization.
Secular opposition parties remain weak, disorganized, and fearful of the long-term aims of the successful Islamist movements. Opposition movements must overcome differences in political ideology, rivalry, and skillful attempts by the ruling parties to play parties against each other if they are to serve as a true source for political change.
Despite the expansion of authority for many parliaments in the Arab world, the distribution of power between the executive and legislative remains fundamentally unaltered. Cooperation between opposition movements, as well as key institutional reforms to allow for more competitive elections and a broader array of powers are needed to address the legislative power deficit.
Civil societies in the Arab world demonstrate the potential to drive democratization, but most focus on development or social services, and are hampered by restrictive legislation, a lack of unifying vision among key civil society actors, dependence on foreign funds, and lack of internal democracy.
Conflicting interests and decreased credibility in the region will continue to hamper the United States’ ability to advocate for democratization. Although the editors question the impact and motivations of outside actors on the reform process, they recommend that Western governments recognize Islamist movements as legitimate and important political actors to encourage cooperation amongst opposition parties. They further argue that excessive praise for cosmetic reforms legitimizes such actions at the expense of the U.S. and European credibility. Reforms must be critically evaluated in the unique context of each country to determine if they constitute meaningful reform and Western governments should align their democracy promotion agendas with demands by reformists within each country.
“What we have not witnessed so far is any example of outside pressure convincing the incumbent government to expose itself to competition that might results in its ouster from power. Nor is it clear whether the United States and other outsiders pushing for reform really want to see the enactment of measures that could lead to a political paradigm change with unforeseeable consequences. Modest, even cosmetic, change often accommodates the political requirements of both incumbent governments and outsiders better than far-reaching measures with unpredictable consequences,” the editors conclude.
Marina Ottaway is a senior associate in the Democracy and Rule of Law Program and director of the Carnegie Middle East Program. Her previous book, Uncharted Journey: Promoting Democracyin the Middle East (co-edited with Thomas Carothers), was published in January 2005.
Julia Choucair-Vizoso is a former associate at the Carnegie Endowment. She is currently a Ph.D. candidate in Political Science at Yale University. Her research focuses on the possibility of democratic change in the Arab world, with attention to political, economic, and social reform trends in the region.
The Carnegie Middle East Program combines in-depth local knowledge with incisive comparative analysis to examine economic, socio-political, and strategic interests in the Arab world. Through detailed country studies and the exploration of key cross-cutting themes, the Carnegie Middle East Program, in coordination with the Carnegie Middle East Center, provides analysis and recommendations in both English and Arabic that are deeply informed by knowledge and views from the region. The Carnegie Middle East Program has special expertise in political reform and Islamist participation in pluralistic politics throughout the region.
The Carnegie Middle East Center is a public policy think tank and research center based in Beirut , Lebanon. Bringing together senior researchers from the region, the Carnegie Middle East Center aims to better inform the process of political change in the Middle East and deepen understanding of the issues the region and its people face.
The Arab Reform Bulletin addresses political reform in the Middle East. Sent monthly, it offers analysis from U.S.-based and Middle Eastern political experts, as well as news synopses and annotated resource guides. The Arab Reform Bulletin is published in English and Arabic.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
The hybrid warfare landscape is evolving rapidly, leaving policymakers without clear strategies. To better inform their work in addressing emerging challenges, governments must dig deeper into the underlying dynamics at play.
The EU had to compromise to adopt a twenty-first sanctions package against Russia, exposing growing cracks in the union’s resolve. Is this latest, weaker round worth it to keep pressure on Moscow?
Mounting economic strain and battlefield losses will not necessarily make the Kremlin less dangerous. They could instead push Moscow toward a more aggressive hybrid campaign designed to test NATO’s Eastern flank, exploit allied hesitation, and fracture European resolve.
