Estee Ward and Dr. Donna Lee Bowen, Middle East Studies

Main Text

There is a growing consensus among scholars that “social science research on the Middle East has, as of yet, scarcely dealt with political opposition as an independent subject of analysis.” Most scholars consider the role of opposition as one way to facilitate the growth of democracy in developing states. They find a good starting point with the concept of alternance, which is defined as the expectation that in a democracy government and opposition compete to gain public support to form a government. In liberal democracies, alternance allows various parties the opportunity to become the higher authority through free and fair elections.

In semi-authoritarian states however, alternance is either nonexistent or limited. Semiauthoritarianism occurs where there are democratic structures in place, such as a legislative branch and set elections, but power is almost entirely vested in the executive arm of government. In Egypt, the executive power is intolerant of the Muslim Brotherhood as even a moderate opposition, and consequently forces it to sit on the fringes of society. In Morocco or Jordan, the executive plays puppet master, allowing parties to compete for majority seats in parliament without forfeiting its own right to power. In essence, parties can compete amongst themselves within a contained political sphere. Though not fully democratized, semi-authoritarian states allow a limited degree of autonomy for their opposition, thus ensuring gradual multipartyism along with relative stability. Limited alternance in semi-authoritarian systems allows opposition to take incremental steps toward general consensus and increased participation in politics.

Middle East scholars have not yet developed a comprehensive framework by which they can study political opposition in the Middle East. According to Schlumberger: “there are no ready made solutions to the puzzle(s)…and the discussion is still at a stage where no mainstream or academic consensus has emerged.” Noting the underdevelopment of Middle East opposition literature, the first part of my research was to review some of the models that had been proposed, noting their strengths as well as gaps in their logic. At Cambridge University I worked with a recent PhD graduate to complete a literature review that tied existing Western democratization and opposition literature to similar literature on the Middle East. We also outlined a potential framework for studying political opposition in semi-authoritarian states. While at Cambridge, I had access to the Cambridge University Library and the Library of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies. Between the two, I had access to virtually all published academic literature on the Middle East.

The second part of my research was to look at specific events in the Middle East when various opposition groups from different ideological backgrounds had come together to counter government authority. I chose three specific cases: the Kefaya movement in Egypt that began in 2004, the protests in Kuwait in 2006, and the Damascus Spring movement in Syria from 1999- 2005. I attempted to make contact with several exiled opposition groups now based in London to learn about how opposition groups in the Middle East function internally. Unfortunately, none were forthcoming. I thus relied on secondary sources and my conversations with my supervisor, who had lived in Kuwait and could give me background on its political environment.

In Washington, DC, I worked with my supervisor to look into how foreign organizations, particularly those from the United States, contributed to democratization in the Middle East. We looked specifically at how the Rockefeller Foundation and Soros Foundation Network had developed a relationship and expanded their outreach in China and Eastern Europe respectively. We then considered how a similar relationship could occur in the Middle East, and whether foreign involvement helps or hinders opposition movements in the region. I talked with him about the Kefaya movement in Egypt, its strengths and weaknesses, and major government responses to the movement that had rendered it unsuccessful. Finally, I interviewed a Syrian now residing in DC, who was an activist during the Damascus Spring. He offered a first hand account of the movement, its major events, and its successes and failures.

My hypothesis in approaching this venture was that political opposition in the Middle East, while fundamentally different from political opposition in fully functioning democracies, nevertheless contributes to the process of democratic reform. A cooperative relationship between Middle Eastern government and their opposition contributes to gradual pluralism and greater degrees of political participation. From my interviews and secondary research, I have concluded that I am partly right. Certainly there has been a gradual opening toward democracy in the Middle East when we compare the situation now to what it was thirty years ago. Technological development and media exposure will increase the likelihood of opposition movements in urban areas. However, all three interviewees agreed that opposition in the Middle East is far from a national phenomenon. Rural areas in Arab countries are far more concerned with their livelihood than with political reform. This makes it easy for government to contain opposition and cut off its social resources. Further, governments in the Middle East have become increasingly good at limiting opposition efforts domestically and ‘pretending’ to be a democracy externally in order to appease their Western allies. The information I gathered from my interviews reflected these conclusions.

It was particularly difficult to talk to people from the Middle East with first-hand experiences about political opposition in their respective countries. I tried to contact Al Mustakillah Television Ltd., Zeitouna TV, and MIRA, all offices for exiled opposition groups from Tunisia and Saudi Arabia now based in London. I contacted a number of representatives, all of whom did not want to be interviewed. I was able to learn about these organizations through news articles and other online interviews. My sense from these sources was that none of these groups had managed to have much influence in their countries once they had left the country.

Despite my lack of success in my interviews, I still feel that I have ample information to complete my honors thesis, which I plan to defend in June. My literature review will serve as the contextual background of my thesis. My interviews will contribute to my references for the case-study section of my thesis.

References

1. Holger Albrecht and Maye Kassem, “Workshop 5: Political Opposition and Authoritarian Rule: State-Society Relations in the Middle East and North Africa” (summary report present at the 8th Mediterranean Research Meeting at the European University Institute’s Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, Florence, March 21-25, 2007), 1.
2. Schlumberger, Oliver, ed. Debating Arab Authoritarianism: Dynamic and Durability in Nondemocratic Regimes, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007: 9.
3. Interview with Ana-Maria Blanaru on 7/13/10, 7/29/10 and 8/11/10 at King’s College, Cambridge, UK
4. Interview with Muhib Attar on 12/4/10 in Washington, DC.