Related Resources

Clayton Swisher discussed the ways in which US foreign policies have undermined its attempts to promote democracy in the Middle East. He began by criticizing America's failure to control the growing violence and division in Iraq. According to Swisher, as the unstable situation endures, many Iraqis are starting to perceive these repercussions as deliberate efforts to divide and weaken the Arab population. He went on to indicate that America's negative reaction to the election of Hamas in the Palestinian parliamentary elections was largely viewed as hypocritical in terms of US support for democracy. In his opinion, US policy toward Hamas is unduly negative and undermines Palestinians' right to self-defense.

Swisher also commented on the growing Lebanon crisis, arguing that Lebanese democracy will not flourish until Lebanon achieves sovereignty. This will entail addressing a host of unresolved issues in the region, including Sheb’a farms, the role of Hezbollah, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, while it has been reported that the US may respond to the Lebanon crisis by causing a wedge between Sunni Syria and Shi’a Iran, Swisher believes that the US does not actually have the military capacity to do so. Ultimately, he argued, the US is making the mistaken assumption that the current offensive in Lebanon will allow the true forces of modernity and Western-friendly parties to emerge, while quite the opposite has occurred thus far.

Reflecting on her visit to Kuwait before the June elections, Jennifer McElhinny provided observations on how Kuwait arrived at this juncture, emphasizing the involvement, prospects, and constraints of women and youth in politics. The initial reform proposed by the Kuwaiti Parliament was a reduction in the number of electoral districts from twenty-five to ten. With twenty-five districts, each district had very few constituents, which increased the potential for vote buying and corruption. In particular, with few voters in each constituency, tribal leaders were able to position themselves to win using family connections.

McElhinny observed two important political movements developing in Kuwait. The burgeoning youth movement, which refers to itself as the Orange Movement, uses new technologies such as text messaging and Internet blogs to mobilize students. From disrupting parliament sessions to political rallies to publishing lists of candidates who they perceive as “clean” and “corrupt,” the youth movement has demonstrated a commitment to challenging the old system in many ways. Women’s groups have also emerged as a potent political force in Kuwait. Although prior to the campaign, some expressed doubts about women’s ability to speak before large mixed audiences and serve a strong public role in government, McElhinny stated that the women she encountered led very strong campaigns during her visit to Kuwait. In general, she found that female candidates did not highlight gender issues, but instead focused on health care and economic platforms. Out of 253 candidates, twenty-seven women ran in the legislative elections.

McElhinny contended that the Kuwaiti government misjudged the popular desire for reform. Districts were in fact voted down to five, and two of the ministers from the youth’s “corruption” list were removed from office, attesting to the growing influence of the youth movement. Overall, election results reflected an increase in the number of Islamist-reformist candidates, and waning support for the “old guard.” McElhinny pointed to emerging tensions between a reform-minded parliament and a traditional cabinet. Women’s voter turnout was rather weak at 40%, compared to 60% for men, and no female candidates were elected. Nevertheless, McElhinny remains cautiously optimistic for the future, given the female candidate’s immense level of professionalism, qualifications, and strong educational backgrounds. In general, women supported Islamists with reformist agendas. Youth had a more encouraging showing, yet their candidate for the speaker of parliament did not end up winning. Ultimately, McElhinny concluded, constituency reform in Kuwait is the key to moving toward a more national agenda. In fact, she believes that the seamlessness of incorporating women in the election process may encourage Saudi Arabia to follow in Kuwait’s path.

Nathan Brown contended that political reform in the Arab world hinges on two main issues, the first being whether or not Islamist movements can be incorporated into the political system and, likewise, if other groups can form an effective counterweight. According to Brown, Islamists are talented at figuring out the rules of the game before anyone else does, and will do well if allowed into elections. Likewise, the emerging visibility of the youth movement in Kuwait reflects the strong influence of ideology on politics.

Brown also pointed to the significant impact of regional conflicts. He criticized the tendency of US policymakers to view political reform as a precondition for conflict resolution; rather, he argued, there is no way to divorce reform from regional conflicts. The election of Hamas in Palestine, for example, represented a democratic transfer of leadership from one party to another, yet remains inextricably tied to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The Islamic Action Front (IAF) in Jordan faces a similar situation in this respect. While the IAF are possibly the most democratic organization in the region, its policies have been strongly influenced by the high number of Palestinian refugees in Jordan. Egypt's population is self-reflective about reform, but they, too, remain steeped in international politics, and reform depends heavily on US external pressure. Brown argued that the success of Kuwait's elections, on the other hand, was possible because they were not as deeply entangled in regional issues.