POMED Notes: “After the Arab Spring: The Uphill Struggle for Democracy”

On Friday, The Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East in conjunction with Freedom House hosted a discussion panel regarding the potential outcomes of the current transitions taking place in several countries in the region, and the potential outcomes of several revolutionary struggles taking places in several more countries in the region. Freedom House also released their 2011 Countries at the Crossroads report, which reviews the current status of the democratic struggle across the MENA region. The discussion was moderated by Michele Dunne, Director of the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East. Panelists included William Taylor, Special coordinator, Office of Middle East Transitions for the U.S. Department of State, David Kramer, President of Freedom House, Hisham Melhem, Washington Bureau Chief of Al’Arbiya Television, Vanessa Tucker, Project Director for the Countries at the Crossroad report, Freedom House and David Yang, Director of the Office of Democracy and Governance, USAID. The panel opened with brief remarks from each panelist followed by a round of questions from the audience and the moderator.

For full event notes, continue reading. Or, click here for the PDF.

Dunne opened up the discussion panel by briefly noting the publication of Freedom House’s latest report and expressed the hope to use the report as the starting point for the panel’s discussion of the current situation in the MENA region. Kramer then expanded on this point by discussing why the release of the report was “very pertinent and timely.” Kramer stated that there were “a number of challenges” that remained for the countries currently in transition and that there is no guarantee that these revolutions will usher in democratic systems. Kramer further reiterated that while removing the dictators was key, it is not the only challenge and there is a lot of work to be done once a dictator is removed from power.

Tucker then delved into the specifics of the report, noting that it covered 70 countries and contained a special section pertinent to the MENA region, which reviewed the issue of governance and freedom from March 2007 until 2011. She noted that because the report had data dating back to 2007, the report was able to give a clear picture of what the situation in the MENA consisted of, running up to the explosion of the Arab Spring at the beginning of this year. Tucker also noted that while “no one would dispute the imperative of economic growth and stability… our analysis also shows that institutional reform is key.” Finally, she pointed out that it was a fallacy to say that the current post-revolutionary countries are democracies, they in fact are not as most are in limbo or quasi post-authoritarian states which are on the path towards democracy.

Taylor then spoke, elucidating on where the Department of the State and the U.S. Government in general stands regarding the changes occurring within the MENA region. Taylor stated that the “U.S. Government sees this [the Arab Spring] as an opportunity – probably the greatest opportunity in foreign relations of the century and certainly of this decade- its of great importance and we want to do what we can [to help].”  Taylor noted that “dictatorships are brittle and usually when they shatter they can cause real problems. Democracies make better allies – Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are not yet but we hope to get them there.” Furthermore,  “these revolutions are moving towards democracy and also has the opportunity to repudiate the terrorist narrative. The terrorists have something different in mind, so if these models succeed it will be good in this realm.” Taylor then used a very catchy metaphor to discuss the current status of the Arab Spring, comparing the transition in the region to “getting on an airplane in which we don’t know where its going and we aren’t in the pilot’s seat and we hope it lands in a place where there are democratic values etc, but they may not land in those place, we will see.” Taylor stated that the U.S. Government “wants these ‘planes’ to land in places that are good for us. So we want to try and guide these planes as best we can.” Taylor discussed some specifics with regards to the countries currently in transition. With regards to Egypt, he said he had met with both the military leadership and civil society organization leaders, seeing what they need and giving them advice about how to go about pushing towards universal human rights values and also democratic values. Taylor also noted that “political changes are fragile if they are not supported by economic reforms and there will be great expectations which the new political will be challenged to meet.”

Taylor then took a number of questions from the audience. Most questions centered on the current status of Egypt’s transition and what the true intentions of the SCAF were and if they would actually relinquish power or if they would attempt to enshrine what power they have gained through an extra-constitutional legal framework. Questions also discussed what the U.S. reaction would be should the Muslim Brotherhood win a majority of seats in the upcoming Egyptian elections and generally speaking, the U.S. reaction to Islamic parties winning majorities in transitional elections around the region. Taylor responded that he discussed the need for civilian oversight with the SCAF and that there were economic reasons why civilian oversight is needed. Nonetheless, Taylor observed that, “the SCAF is uncomfortable and are ready to leave [power]. I don’t think the SCAF really wants to be running the country, it’s not something they normally do. I have not heard any debate regarding about turning over legislative power to the new legislature. But these issues are a concern.” Regarding the Muslim Brotherhood and the general issue of Islamic parties winning seats, Taylor stated that as long as the elections taking place were free and fair, the U.S. government will be satisfied and be willing to speak with whichever parties win seats whether it be the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or EnNahda in Tunisia. Furthermore, Taylor stated that “we [the U.S. Government] need to judge people and parties based on what they do, not what they are called.” When Taylor was asked a two-part question regarding U.S. support for the Egyptian military and the concern regarding Saudi financial support for Salafist parties in Egypt, Taylor stated that the “U.S. has a lot at stake in Egypt. This is going to be a long process. If Congress keeps the funding there, we will continue having an FMF relationship with the Egyptian military.” Taylor did not respond to the question regarding Saudi funding for Salafist parties in Egypt.

Next, Yang spoke about the role of USAID in the transition period for Tunisia, Libya and Egypt and USAID’s general role with regards to general changes seen in the region. Yang described the Arab Sping as “truly bottom up revolutions from voiceless citizens. These revolutions and transitions are dual in nature: they are both political and economic in nature” and stressed that USAID “wants to work to assist in both sets of reforms.” Yang also stressed that USAID had plans to support these transitional countries “for the long haul” and that USAID “has no illusions these transitions will be quick not after decades of bad economic and political governance.” With regard to current projects, Yang discussed the financial aid –totaling around $20 million- USAID provided to help the Tunisian elections, which were seen as a success. Yang stated that they would also support Egypt and Libya’s transition and had several benchmarks in mind for both countries to measure the success of their transitions and areas where USAID expected to see improvement.

Finally, Melhem spoke about some of the reasons he saw for the occurrence of the Arab Spring and in what direction he saw the MENA region heading as a result of the changes that have occurred. Melhem categorized the current changes as “upheavals” and stated that he did not consider them revolutions because “they are not driven by one overarching narrative or ideologies. This was driven by the need to stop being treated by these regimes as subjects, we want to be citizens and have our rights.” Melhem also noted that these transitions are going to be “bumpy and painful.” With regard specifically to certain transitions, he expressed hope for Tunisia because of its demographic homogeneity and its “secular traditions.” He expressed less optimism with regards to Egypt and said that at best, “Egypt will muddle through.” Finally, he stated that because Libya is a country “bereft of institutions and functioning civil society… they [Libya] need to start from scratch.” In sum, Melhem felt that the Arab Spring and the resultant transitions had a long way to travel and also noted “there is cultural baggage which will be impediments real reform.”

Further questions were taken from the audience, which ranged from further prodding on the issue of the SCAF and their resistance to civil society organizations and reforms to questions regarding potential outcomes for Arab military governments versus Arab Monarchies. Yang stated that with regards to civil society in Egypt, USAID “stand[s] by our belief that civil society and empowering the voices of Tahrir Square are a key part of supporting Egyptian democracy. We stand by that assistance and we have the support of the State Department in this regard.” Melhem discussed potential Arab Spring outcomes and noted that Bahrain was an anomaly in this regard and used the question as an opportunity to discuss the plight of the Bahraini protest movement. Melhem also noted that while numerous monarchies had the benefit of throwing money at many of their problems, “ultimately they will have to open up they cannot insulate themselves forever…. I don’t see any single country that is immune.”