A third attempt for democratization started with the election of Moham med Mosaddik as prim e Minister by the Iranian Parliament. He had promised to

Transcription

1 Mr. Onur Öymen After the end of the Cold War and the collapse of Soviet Union, a strong wave of democratization began in the world, starting with Eas tern Europe. In a short period a num ber of authoritarian regim es collapsed in Eastern Europe, in Latin Am erica, in the Far East and in som e African countries. The only exception was the Middle East. It is not easy to understand why none of the Middle Eastern countries were able to reach admissible democratic standards 20 years after the end of the Cold War. There are historical, internal and external political reasons. Let start with the history. The attem pts of democratization in the region have started already during the first decade of the 20th century in Iran. A constitution was prom ulgated, political parties were form ed and a parliament was established. It was a very prom ising beginning. However, some local and foreign elements were disturbed of the possibility of the establishment of a real democratization of Iran. This might damage their own interest. During that period, Iran was practically divided into zones of influence between Britain and Russia. These two countries were also concerned of the possibility of a real democratization of an oil rich country in the region which might lead to the defence of national interests against foreign presence. As a result of an arm ed intervention and the use of force by Russia, the Iranian parliam ent was destroyed and a num ber of politicians were killed. This was the first failure of several attem pts of democratization in Iran. In 1934, Rıza Shah of Iran visited Turkey, m et Atatürk and travelled around the country for about 10 days. At the end of the visit, he told Atatürk that he was very much impressed of the achievements in Turkey and that he was willing to repeat the same experience in his country. He asked Atatürk his advise about from where he should start. Atatürk said that the most important thing is to adopt a s ystem of government based on popular will. Consequently he suggested to start a democratization process. Rıza Shah tried to take some steps in this direction but failed because of the strong reaction of some conservative elements in the society.

2 A third attempt for democratization started with the election of Moham med Mosaddik as prim e Minister by the Iranian Parliament. He had promised to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Com pany, which was under the control of British shareholders. This decision created a very strong reaction in Britain who persuaded Eisenhower Administration to overthrow Mosaddek by provoking mass rallies and violent protes t actions against him with the support of some elements in the army. This attem pt forced Mosaddek to leave the power. The authoritarian regime of Rıza Şah Pahlavi continued, as well as the operations of Anglo Iranian Oil Company, this time with Am erican participation. The big looser was, once again, democracy. In Syria, in the m iddle of 1940 s, presidential elections were held and General Çiçekli was elected as President. But soon after, he was overthrown as a result of a as military coup inspired by foreign powers. The main reason was the objection of Çiçekli to the construction of a pipeline to be built to carry oil from Saudi Arabia to the Mediterranean though Syria. In Egypt, right after the deposition of King Faruk as a result of a coup, the nationalist led by Colonel Gamal Abdul Nasser tried to transform Egypt into a modern dem ocratic county. Nasser told the Turkish Ambassador in Cairo that their aim was to profit from Turkish experience. They were inspired by the successful reform s of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Unfortunately, the Turkish ambassador who had fam ily ties with the deposed King was not very much impressed and reacted negatively to the expectations of Nasser. This has created the cooling of relations between Turkey and Egypt, which lasted several decades. Nasser looked for different models and established close relations with the Soviet Union. The m ilitary operation conducted by Britain, France and Israel with the aim of retaking the control of the Suez Canal, nationalised by Nasser, created further strain between Egypt and the Western dem ocracies. Internal developments in Egypt also forced the leaders of the country to conduct an authoritarian rule. The Muslim Brotherhood, established in 1928, became a s trong political and social organization aiming at to turn Egypt into a religious state. They were against democratic freedoms and m odern life. They have not hesitated to use force against foreign and local personalities and killed the Egyptian Prime Minister

3 in Muslim radicals also organised an unsuccessful assassination attem pt against Nasser him self. As a reaction to these events, the Egyptian government banned the Muslim Brotherhood who continued its clandestine activities. Throughout the following decades radical Muslim groups exerted a strong pressure for the further Islamization of Egypt. This was an im portant elem ent that prevented a the process of dem ocratization in Egypt. The assassination of President Enver Sedat by Islam ic extrem ists m ade the situation even more difficult for those who were aspiring a modern society. Muslim Brotherhood becam e a very strong and well organised group, not only in Egypt but also in m ost of the Arab countries. Those are som e of the reasons that may explain a long delay in the process of democratization in Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries. When the Arab spring started in 2010 in Tunisia by the large masses expecting to end the authoritarian and corrupt sdministration and urging more dem ocracy and human rights, the Muslim Broderhood took the initiative in several countries and particularly in Egypt to control the outcom e of the uprising. In fact, the Arab spring in Egypt started as a big m ass rally of the people urging for democratic reforms. The strong reaction of president Mubarak anticipated the end of his rule. A few days after the protest m ovem ents started, the Muslim Brotherhood took the control of the streets to a large extend and dominated the following political developments. Until the fall of Husni Mubarek, the Muslim Brotherhood were not permitted to form a party and to participate as a group to national elections. General Tantavi, who took over the government, has lifted the ban on the Muslim Brotherhood, perm itting them to establish their own political party and to participate in national elections. Mohamm ed Mursi, the leading representative of the Muslim Brotherhood was elected as president in the same year with the support of conservative elements of the Egyptian society. He was aiming to turn Egypt into a Sheria country, destroying to a large extent the already limited human rights and personal freedoms. His attempt to make religion

4 as the foundation of the Egyptian political s ystem created a strong reaction among large segments of the Egyptian society. His adamant position and refusal to reconcile with the opposition forces led to a military coup under the General Sisi who prom ised a return to democracy in a short while after changing the constitution and organising general elections. Despite all the efforts, Egypt, as well as other Middle Eastern countries, are s till far away from a real democratization. Regarding the internal dynamics of the Middle Eastern countries, I believe that the main reason of their failure to reach democratic standards is the lack of secular constitutions. Secularism is a sine qua non condition of dem ocracy in countries with a Muslim majority, since the Muslim religion covers also a number of areas related to public administration and the daily life of the peoples. It would be very difficult to create a democratic s ys tem based on positive law and personal freedom s unless the principle of secularism, which separates clearly the religion from the affairs of the state is adopted. In a secular country you cannot govern the people according Sharia law. The only country with a Muslim majority who succeeded so far to adopt a secular system is Turkey. Soon after the proclam ation of the Turkish republic Republic we have abolished the Caliphate together with some religious institutions governing the public life. In 1937, Turkey introduced secularism as one of the basic pillars of the Constitution of the Republic. No other country of the region was able so far to adopt a secular constitution. Now, our western friends and allies are encouraging the Middle Eastern countries to develop a democratic system. However, to the best of my knowledge, none of them referred so far to secularism as the basis of their future democratic system. For exam ple in the Greater Middle East Project of the USA, presented by President Bush with the aim of democratization of the region, there is not a single reference to the concept of secularism. I can even say that western leaders refer seldom to the value of secularism in their statem ents encouraging further democratization of Turkey. The third element is the interests of foreign countries in the Middle Eas t. 71 per cent % of world oil and natural gas production is com ing from the Middle Eas t and

5 countries neiboring this region. Major western powers have always had stakes in the area and they are dependent largely to on the oil of the region to sustain their economies. The secure flow of oil from the Middle East to the western and far eastern m arkets are vitally important. The security of routes of transportation like the Suez Canal, has also great importance for economic interest of m ajor powers. A num ber of important political developments and military confrontations in the region happened because of conflicting oil and natural gas interests. More than a million people have lost their lives in the last three decades as a result of these conflicts. Several million people were displaced from their villages. Humanitarian problems em erged from the conflicts in the region. In Syria alone, m ore than people lost their lives and the number of refugees exceeded to two m illion, more than of them came to Turkey. Unfortunately, the solution suggested by many countries for the Syrian problem was based on the expectation of the overthrow of the Esad government by force. Lethal and non-lethal weapons are supplied by western and som e Middle Eastern countries to the forces com batting the Esad regime like the Free Syrian Arm y. In the meantime, som e Islamic terrorist organisations like Al Kaide, Al Nusra, Jihadist, Islamic Front, Islamic State of Iraq and Levant took control of the situation in many places and started to fight against the Syrian government, each for their own purposes. Some of these groups fight occasionally among themselves. There are reports that they captured som e of the leathal weapons supplied to Free Syrian Arnay, the m ain Syrian oppositiıon group. The 910 KM long border between Turkey and Syria are actually controlled by these forces. One the independent armed group is PYD, closely connected to PKK terror organization declared its autonom y in the Northern part of Syria close to Turkish and Iraqi border. All these elements reduce the chances of democratization of the countries of the Middle East in a near future. Unfortunately, one of the main reasons of confrontation in the Middle East is a power struggle between various religious sects. Each of them try to have the upper hand in the area. One m ain axis is Shia governm ents and groups starting from Iran, all the way to the Mediterranean passing through Iraq, Syria to Hezbollah, Shia dom inated Islam ic

6 group in Lebanon. The other axis is dom inated by the Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunnite radical group, goes from Gaza, all the way to the Atlantic, passing through Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. The m ain object of the Sunnite Muslim Brotherhood in Syria is to control the Shia government, ending the rule of Esad and m aking the Sunnite axis even stronger and blocking the routes of delivery of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah. The recent ban of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt by the Sisi Government has created a new situation and changed these general patterns. To end m y com ment as a positive note, I should say that the most important force in the Middle Eas t are the peoples of these countries and that the overwhelming majority of these peoples are for democracy, human rights and peace. The democratic countries of the world should spend every efford to promote democracy in the area, not only as a way of life, but also as an instrument for peace, since no war in the world so far has happened am ong dem ocratic countries.