Four years ago, the democratic world, particularly the West, was enthralled by the wave of popular uprisings in the Middle East that swept away decades of strangleholds by autocratic regimes in that region. From Tunisia, where it started after self-immolation by a shopkeeper, the wave of democratic uprising swept throughout Egypt, Libya, Syria, and even closer to Saudi land, Bahrain.
The series of protests and popular upheaval removed dictatorial regimes in three countries, and brought another regime in Syria to its knees. While the movement shook up the entire Middle East, it also brought the hope of change for the people in that region -- a change for a better government that represented the people’s wishes.
The jury is still out on deciding if the popular uprisings of 2011-12 and end of the dictators in the three countries brought the change that was hoped for, or if they made any visible changes in the lives of the people there. In Egypt, the military is back after a popularly elected government was dethroned for trumped-up charges of corruption and the military is back in the reins, albeit through an election
Libya is segmented in two halves: One in the hand of a so-called elected government while the other half is in the hands of Islamic militants. The Syria uprising morphed into a hydra-like monster, giving birth to a group of radical Islamists who, by far, have proved to be most lethal in its dealings with their opponents, and far more committed to establish their vision of an Islamic state than any other radical religious groups.
Yemen, where the uprising was mainly on a partisan basis between the ruling Sunni president and his Shia opponents, there was a temporary truce with the incumbent president resigning. But instead of ushering the country into any democratically meaningful change, the country broke into sectarian wars which have now drawn the country’s more powerful neighbour, Saudi Arabia, into the fray.
It is only Tunisia, which literally started the fire, that has been able to weather these counter-attacks and is still able to hold out with a democratically-elected government, albeit tenuously holding on, deflecting continuous attacks by militants on the population.
There are many reasons why the promise of 2011 for democracy and democratic governments in these countries did not pan out. Although each country has its unique political condition and sectarian structure to account for the subsequent events, a major reason for the failure is the absence of political leadership and political institutions that nurture and uphold democracy, in these countries.
Years of autocratic rule and dominance of politics by army in many countries ensured that no political institution that promotes people’s rights and universal franchise exist. In Egypt, political leadership outside of the ruling elite was confined within the religious groups and other minor parties that mainly depended on the government for participation in the charade of presidential elections that the country used to have for decades. The only true opposition, the Muslim Brotherhood, was banned, and even after the overthrowing of Hosni Mubarak, the party had to reconfigure itself in a different name.
In Libya, politics was determined by Muammar Gaddafi, who ruled the country through Revolutionary Council and Revolutionary Committees. Individual political entities, apart from Gaddafi’s own committees, did not exist. In Syria, up until 2012, the constitution created a one-party state, the Ba’ath Party, which was vested with powers to run the government.
The uprising of 2012 led President Assad to amend the constitution to allow a multi-party system, but the elections to the parliament were manipulated to return the Ba’ath Party to power again.
Of all the countries, Egypt had the biggest promise of ushering in reforms that would have an impact on all neighbouring countries. Tahrir Square became a symbol of resistance to all autocratic and anti-democratic forces, and a beacon of hope for establishing human rights. The fall of Hosni Mubarak had a domino effect on neighbouring countries. But unlike Libya where Gaddafi faced a cruel end, Hosni had a more decent exit -- he resigned, although to be incarcerated later.
Unfortunately, the hope of democracy and rule of people that the fall of Hosni Mubarak could not be sustained. A popular election that put a coalition of Muslim Brotherhood and its allies in charge, would soon find itself facing another upheaval because the opponents of the alliance were unhappy.
This second uprising in less than two years would be used as an excuse by the all-powerful army to step in and throw out the elected government and put its leader in Jail. Egypt today is again run by an army general as president, albeit elected under a heavily controlled election.
Libya was also hypothetically liberated after the death of Gaddafi, leading to hopes for a popular government that would be elected by the people. But that dream would disappear when the elections that led to the formation of a government would be rejected by the opponent, and the country would be launched into another civil war.
The country is practically divided into two parts, one occupied by a force claiming Islamic caliphate, the other the remains of a so-called democratically-elected government. Syria is a completely different story. The early hopes of an end to dictatorial regime were dashed because of internecine war among the dissidents and later the rise of the force that menaces the entire region with their draconian form of militant Islam.
Western democracy, as it exists, either in parliamentary or presidential form, is based on the fundamental principles of universal human rights to free speech, free movement, quality, and rule of law. Unfortunately, few of the Muslim countries have experienced democracy in its essence. With wars ravaging the Middle East and most Muslim countries in a state of conflict of one kind or another, it is inconceivable that democracy, as people in the West understand, will ever be established in any of them.
A customised democracy such as those in Malaysia and Indonesia may be an answer for some countries, but even this will require a bold leadership that puts the rights of people above everything else, including religion. Otherwise, the Muslim countries will continue to battle the demons among them who want to destroy every aspect of human values, including democracy, to establish their mistaken interpretation of religion and their terrible ideology.
