Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Editor’s note: The following is the second part of a two-part analysis on the Arab revolts in the Middle East. The Daily Star published the first part of the article in Tuesday’s issue.
Alistair Lyon
Reuters

BEIRUT: In countries which have offered reform – Morocco, Algeria, Jordan – it remains to be seen whether leaders will stick to pledges and peacefully cede real power, or find ways to divide, co-opt or cow their opponents.
“Thus far, no Arab ruler has really made a substantial offer of political reform to protesters,” said Robert Springborg, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey.

“The closest appears to be the offer of constitutional reforms presented by Mohammad VI of Morocco, but he has hedged that offer pretty significantly.”

King Mohammad unveiled plans in March for a 19-member team – named by himself – to draft constitutional changes by June that would strengthen Parliament, empower local officials and promote judicial independence.
Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika lifted a 19-year-old state of emergency and offered unspecified political reforms in February, but has not yielded to demands for constitutional amendments to limit presidential terms and allow new parties.

Jordan’s King Abdullah has so far resisted pressure for a constitutional monarchy or an elected government.
No matter what happens in those other countries, all Arabs will be watching Egypt and Tunisia, which are already on the stony path to more representative government.

Egypt’s military rulers have set a tight time-table for a return to civilian rule, with parliamentary and presidential polls this year. A new constitution is also planned. In Tunisia, voters will pick a 200-member assembly in July that will elect interim leaders and draft a new constitution ahead of elections.

Springborg said such changes were not easy in countries where past regimes relied on patronage and allocations to buy support. The challenges “turn on shifting the base of popular acceptance of rule from a material to a policy basis,” he said. “So in the absence of economic development occurring very quickly – and it won’t – how does one create competitive political parties in the absence of patronage resources?”

Springborg said Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and the remnants of Mubarak’s ruling party could still wield such resources and offer cash or jobs. “The change is reversible but not all at once. A creeping authoritarianism could gradually erode democratic reforms.”

Citing Egypt’s referendum turnout, Volker Perthes, director of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, said: “People are happy to see there is a new regime.” But, he added “at some point when the enthusiasm is over and elections have taken place, people will start asking for results.”

Perhaps the biggest hurdle to transforming a country like Egypt will be working out what role the military should play. So far, pro-democracy reformers have been reluctant to question their future place.

“The Egyptians have an extremely good chance of transiting to a democratic system,” said Rashid Khalidi, professor of Arab studies at Colombia University in New York.

Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Endowment’s Middle East Center in Beirut, cited Turkey’s mixed experiences to suggest a possible partnership between the government and the military in Egypt that could promote stability, if not full civilian rule for now.

Khalidi of Colombia University said the Turkish model was attractive “in the sense of keeping the military out of politics, having an independent foreign policy, accepting the idea that Islam plays a role within politics, but in an essentially secular system.”