POMED Notes: Freedom in the World 2012: The Arab Uprisings and Their Global Repercussions
On Thursday, Freedom House held an event discussing the release of their annual Freedom in the World report. Presenting his research and findings was Arch Puddington, vice president for research at Freedom House. Additionally present on the panel was Robert Kagan, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, Suzanne Nossel, executive director of Amnesty International USA, Daniel Brumberg, professor of government at Georgetown University and senior advisor at the U.S. Institute of Peace. The event was moderated by Susan Glasser, editor-in-chief at Foreign Policy Magazine.
For full event notes, continue reading below. Or, click here for the PDF
The discussion began with an overview of the tremendous impact the events of the Arab Spring had not only in the Arab world, but how the uprisings affected all authoritarian regimes around the world. Puddington noted that the events deeply diminished the “sense of self confidence of world authoritarian leaders” and people “realized that authoritarian dictators are not a fact of life”. That having been said, Puddington noted that the report found that despite breakthroughs there are countries that are headed in the wrong direction, notably Syria and Bahrain.
The first topic addressed by the panel was, ‘Will 2011 be remembered as a transformational year?’ Puddington addressed the “success stories” in Tunisia and Egypt, but also how Egypt, with the recent raid on NGO (of which Freedom House was included), was facing difficulties which Tunisia has more or less has overcome. Some negative signs of important countries “in decline” included Turkey, which raised concerns that what is looked to as the proposed model for Islamic governance is having issues with the Kurdish minority.
Robert Kagan addressed the next topic, which was to compare the events of 2011 with the break up of the Soviet Union in 1989. Was this a ‘1989’ type year. Kagan referred to the historical events, notably the age of revolutions that swept through Europe in the 19th century which were quelled. The “determining factors” of these two separate time period are different. “Configuration of power internationally and the role democracies (what they do to support/policy) is important. He used the withdrawal of support away from Mubarak as an example, “it depends what the U.S does,” he said.
Suzanne Nossel added that Tunisia has “set the bar”—a revolutionary model has arisen that wasn’t seen a year ago. “Egypt has also shown the depth/complexity of the state.” She stressed the limits of U.S influence that were seen in the Egyptian revolution and stressed the involvement of US Gov. and NGO work with constituencies on the ground and other ways the US influences these events, such as supplying tear gas canisters and arms.
Daniel Brumberg noted the possibility that the Bush Administration’s Freedom Agenda may have had a role or even pushed the current administration to “get away from unconditional support to autocrats”. He went on to say, “the revolutions of 1989 were negotiated transactions between “dismantled governments and a unified opposition”. He stressed the importance of understanding the “liberal autocracy” model and how this form of governance is affecting the progress of the push for democracy in Egypt. “Egypt,” he said “has no choice but to negotiate with the military” because the “tree trunk” of Egyptian autocratic governance is still there.
Puddington transitioned mentioning that “more people wanted the revolutions of 1989/91 to succeed.” Later in the Q&A session, it was noted that Islam may have a role in the relative support levels. Kagan discussed that the U.S role in forming democracies is underestimated, noting how geo-politics and economics can play a role in democratization as was the case in Burma and Singapore.” Kagan also made the statement that our policies throughout our history have been “inconsistent and hypocritical” and that our message to every leader/government we have dealt with has been “ultimately we will betray you.” He stated that the U.S recently has been preventing backslides of allies (like Turkey) rather than seeking to promote democracy.
Brumberg addressed the question from Glasser, “are semi-democracies prone to political upheaval” by reiterating that the complexity of some of these countries, Egypt especially, throws off the emphasis of political science theory “Islamists card pushes the US away”. Brumberg spoke of the complexities of the societies of Syria and Bahrain and how this may have an affect on the unity of the opposition.
The report’s negative components had to do with the “backslide” of some countries toward more authoritarian regimes. Nossel emphasized that Israel was facing a significant backslide with their treatment of NGO (their autonomy decreasing) and restrictions being placed on boycotts. She also had an interesting angle when she suggested that the US role, specifically when dealing with regimes who are uncooperative or institute half-hearted reforms, is to mobilize the constituencies, truly understanding what the oppositions wants/needs the US (from both NGO and Government) when it comes to support/policy.
Kagan transitioned the conversation to a discussion concerning the state of U.S policy taking into consideration the events of the past year pointing specifically to how the US supported Libya, Egypt but did not have much to say about Syria or Bahrain. He concluded that our actions promoting democracy are a function of “it is who we are” and “it is in our interest”. “We benefit from countries going the democratic route,” he said.
Questions about the impact of social media on the spread of democracy and revolutions sparked comments from Nossel about the GOFA act hitting congress this week. “Social media enables people to come together rapidly in an organized fashion,” but stressed that the “energy” of the Egyptian revolution has been deflated to some extent.
A question was raised about how President Obama is to deal with SCAF. Brumberg and Kagan discussed how it is the belief of some that the only thing the US cares about is the treaty with Israel being honored, “but we also care about how our NGOs are treated” said Kagan. “We have to care about more than Israel”, especially how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict affects democratization.
The best outcomes or the desired outcomes from the panel for Egypt was described as actually having the Islamists working with non-islamists, respecting the democratic process and making Islam compatible with democracy. Nossel noted that building institutions is necessary for democracy. The event concluded with the a hopeful outlook for freedom developments over the next year and hopes that a pragmatic political map can be written for a balanced playing field between governments and their constituencies
