Journalists, pundits and politicians seem increasingly obsessed with fears that Islamists winning elections in the wake of successful Arab Spring uprisings will prove detrimental to democracy, regional security, and the War on Terrorism.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Having spent years studying and living in the Arab world, as well as fighting alongside the rebels in the Libyan Civil War, I have little concern about Islamists winning elections.
And they will win. The death, destruction, ritual prayer, and exclaiming Allahu Akbar throughout the day during an Arab Spring revolution will make people more religious, and they will be more inclined to vote for Islamist candidates. Additionally the Islamists, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, have been active and organized for years. A more religious population combined with the organizational advantages of the Islamist parties means they are ensured victories in the first elections following any Arab Spring revolution.
The fact is, however, the victory of Islamist political parties in democratic elections, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, is beneficial to the United States, the region, and the future of democracy for two reasons.
First, one of the most significant outcomes of the decade-long War on Terrorism has been an abundance of research into the causes of terrorism. This research has produced an overwhelmingly consistent conclusion: terrorists become terrorists to pursue political causes under systems of government where they lack the ability to do so by peaceful means. The majority of terrorists come from countries where civil liberties and political rights are suppressed. They choose violence over votes to achieve political outcomes because it is the best (and often only) strategy available.
Given this reality, the single best way to reduce terrorism is to convince terrorists that they can achieve their goals and gain power using the ballot box instead of bombs. Islamists, the vast majority of whom are not terrorists, will choose politics as their battlefield if they believe they can win elections, and winning the first elections after an armed struggle will convert many of the terrorists to politicians. Once they enjoy the trappings of political power (including lining their pockets through corruption) they are unlikely to return to violence.
Carl von Clausewitz called war "politics by other means." The reverse is also true. Politics is war by other means. It is also far more profitable and potentially successful than terrorism.
Second, Islamists are unlikely to remain in power beyond a few election cycles. Following an Arab Spring revolution the people's expectations are unreasonably high and whoever wins the first elections will fail to meet those expectations and be voted out of office. Libyans were complaining about the NTC providing basic services once Tripoli fell, and the war wasn't even over yet. It is far better for Islamists to take the fall as the first elected party and pave the way for secularists to defeat them in subsequent elections, than it is the other way around. Those who gain power first in a new and fragile system of government will also be involved in more corruption, which when exposed will damage that party's reputation in future elections.
Critics of this view will argue that Islamists may attempt to establish a non-democratic system of government to hold onto power. During my experience fighting in the Libyan Civil War I never heard rebels claim to want anything other than democracy. Furthermore, any attempt by Islamists to undermine a democracy that thousands gave their lives for (and many more were wounded for) would be met with violent opposition. Arabs have spilled blood for their democracy and appreciate it on a level that few Americans will ever understand -- they will take up arms against anyone, including Islamists, who try to undermine their hard-won freedom.
Radical Islamist terrorists like Ayman al-Zawahiri of al Qaeda have harshly criticized Islamist political parties, especially the Muslim Brotherhood. Zawahiri understands that the spread of democracy through the Arab Spring has the potential to destroy al Qaeda by drying up recruitment and funding, and undermining the supposed 'need' for jihad in the first place.
Regardless of the consequences of the Arab Spring for the United States, the Arab Spring will not stop, and if the US wants any influence in the newly democratic countries it needs to form relationships with all political forces, especially Islamists, and should begin before the revolutions are finished. Once a country goes democratic it is up to the people to decide their future and if they vote for Islamists then that is their choice. We only have the choice how to respond. We can influence them through persuasion and policy, but we will never control them or dictate who they should elect.
To do so would be profoundly un-democratic.
Follow Matthew VanDyke on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Matt_VanDyke
Take one example: "the people's expectations are unreasonably high and whoever wins the first elections will fail to meet those expectations and be voted out of office." That is a very pleasing sounding generalization, but for anything approaching statistical validity, it needs a wider sample than "Arab Spring": yet when we look beyond that narrow restriction, we discover that no, the conclusion does NOT hold. It did not hold in Weimar Germany, when the party that won first managed to seize and hold on to power, killing the young democracy.
The author has no solid grounds for claiming the same will not happen in Arab countries, which have NO experience with democracy.
After having destroyed an entire country and prevent it from developing in a natural way ( one of the argument used above ) , how do you rate this " revolution" so far?
But I don't think your column does enough to invalidate the reader's fears. You quote studies, facts and opinions of people who sit under immediate duress, not the dangers that insularism and apathy eventually generate. Democracy is always most vibrant right after the change. Several years down the line and that becomes a more difficult proposition. For example, right now South Africa is probably going through its toughest tests yet to forge its democratic journey. I have no doubt we will prevail, but the point is that the years after a revolution are more critical than the sentiment upon winning that revolution. Don't underestimate what happens once a common enemy disappears. I don't think you address this.
You also do not touch on the elephant in the room: Iran. There is an oft-cited example of a country that attempted to redefine itself through some democratic system, instead degenerating into a theocracy. Not all regime-changes can be painted with this brush, but critics of your argument would use it nonetheless. That requires some form of rebuttal.
In different times and places, we have both supported and opposed secular dictatorshÂÂÂips as well as religious groups based solely upon on their correlatioÂÂÂn with US interests, irrespectiÂÂÂve of their inherent secular or religious merit.
For example, while the current vogue is to define the alleged inherent evil of “extremist Islam,” we have supported it in the past in Afghanistan, and currently support the Saudi monarchy, both of whom rely for legitimacy upon what many in the Islamic world consider extremist interpretaÂÂtions of Islam.
And while we now preach to the Islamic world about Secularism as the true path to “modernityÂÂÂ,” we have supported (and in many instances continue to support) secular dictatorshÂÂÂips that have brutally suppressed both religious and secular democratic parties, without any apparent concern for either “modernity” or “democracy” in the target countries.
The point is that both Secularism and Islamism are capable of supporting dictatorshÂÂÂips, autocracieÂÂÂs, monarchiesÂÂÂ, democracy, and yes, perhaps even “modernity” in the Islamic World.
What we should be doing is supporting democratic parties, be they secular or religious, that advocate the interests of their local populationÂÂÂs and are accountablÂÂÂe to them, for suppressioÂÂn will only serve to empower its more radical elements.
I’ve learned that everyone worldwide pretty much wants the same thing. First is a couple meals a day. Then it’s enough money to send their children to school. They want institutions in place to help them protect their families, such as a fair and uncorrupt government. Extremely few have the luxury of enough free time to actually hate people half a world away. They’re too worried about what happens in their village to care much about the “infidels” in America.
If these Islamists are smart, they’ll work on the ground to meet the people’s basic needs. I don’t see how they’ll last any longer than the last regime unless they do exactly that.
I support any government that can meet the poor people’s needs. This will indirectly benefit the US. Disenfranchised and desperate people make great breeding grounds for terrorists. Satisfied people do not.
So the solution is to replace their current power - guns and bombs - with political power? And what about those that will be subjected to their authoritarian and archaic ideas once they obtain that political power? Wouldn't providing them with political power actually widen the scope for them to impose those patriarchal and mysoginistic views? Is the author saying we have to trade the fear of terrorist acts for the freedom of women and anyone not in line with the Islamists? Which is the worse result? The terrorist attacks or the 'legal' enforcement of the views of those willing to commit terrorist attacks?
American Right do not like it because it is not their Religion that is taking Control of the people.
American Central says it is just what those people want, for now.
America should grow up into it's new position in the world, not act like it is America's world.
Think, Talk, interact, that is the goal here.
I would really like to believe this, but it sounds more like a pipe dream.
Take a look at what happened in the Palestinian territories. They elected Hamas and Hamas has never held another election. (They may have one in a few months, but maybe not.) Hamas uses Israel as an excuse, but other countries could use a variety of other excuses to avoid elections..."security concerns", "possible terrorism", "foreign meddling". I fear the the Islamists see democracy as a way to gain power, not as a way to govern.
I guess we will find out who is right. (I hope I am wrong.)
ALL HOPE, NO FACTS. (sorry caps)
I hope he's right.
Unfortunately, it looks like the author is serious.
The Islamists of the region have a very different view of democracy, and it is not what we in the west interpret as freedom.
Women and religious minorities will suffer *democratically decided* limitations on their freedom. Violent extremist views that engender terrorism will not only be tolerated, but tacitly encouraged. Violations of simple human rights for those minorities will be the law of the land--all *democratically decided*.
No, the rise of Islamism, the ultimate in a very bad mix of religion and politics will be a very bad thing for the region and the world.