Electing Terrorists?
Gerard McCarthy explores the role of elections in instilling civic virtue in the Middle East.
Islamist groups throughout the Middle East are beginning to embrace democracy and compete in national elections. However, many question their commitment to democracy beyond a tactical means of power, claiming that it will be “one man, one vote, one time”.
One major justification for authoritarian regimes in the Middle East has been the danger of Muslim citizens electing radical Islamist parties to government. Given this prospect, Western powers have often supported autocrats over theocrats. However, the situation is far more complex than this cynical dichotomy suggests.
Throughout the Muslim world, governing regimes place onerous restrictions on Islamic parties under the rubric of ‘national security’. In Egypt, for example, President Hosni Mubarak has crippled political alternatives by imprisoning opposition leaders, while Tunisia’s ‘state of emergency’ laws drastically restrict rights of protest and free speech. Ironically – and often intentionally – such measures constrain genuine democrats and further radicalise Islamists.
“Allowing participation in elections has transformed the civic behaviour of Islamist parties.”
Across the Middle East, restrictions on political freedoms have left the mosque as the only uncensored forum for political discussion and opposition. In this political environment, it becomes inevitable that Islamist organisations such as Algeria’s Movement for a Peaceful Society and the Muslim Brothers in Egypt assume a greater role in politics. The question is, however, should they be allowed to?
John Locke argued in his Letter of Toleration that the viability of a liberal democratic society depends on its citizens possessing a modicum of liberal civic virtue. Whilst individuals are free to pursue their conceptions of the ‘good life’, this liberty must be tethered to an acceptance of basic civic values. Many Islamist parties now participating in elections previously rejected such democratic processes. Hamas, for example, the Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, opposed the democratic parliamentary system.
However, after boycotting the Palestinian presidential elections of 2005, which had a voter turnout of over 70 per cent, Hamas embraced electoral politics and curbed its use of violence. In the 2006 elections, Hamas won a majority of the vote and formed a government. A similar reassessment occurred in Egypt, where the Muslim Brothers, who earlier perceived democratic elections as a Western ploy or ‘trick’, have sought registration as a political party.
Whilst the Mubarak government continues to refuse them recognition, the Muslim Brothers have run as nominal independents in the last four elections, winning more than 20 per cent of the vote in 2005. Allowing participation in elections has transformed the civic behaviour of Islamist parties as they seek electoral support by appealing to the interests and grievances of their fellow citizens.
Participation in electoral politics elsewhere in the Middle East may lead Islamist parties to moderate their radical Islamist ideology. The development of this democratic political outlook, however, depends on the state providing a legitimate and stable mode of electoral participation. In countries where the political system is relatively open, Islamist parties have adapted to the pluralistic framework of democracy and are open to pragmatic compromise to advance their political agenda.
Morocco’s Party of Justice and Development has campaigned for secular reform and modernising Morocco’s economy, rather than religious goals. Bahrain’s Islamic National Accord Society has similar programmes for its country’s political, social and economic future, but remains overt about its Islamism. These national variations demonstrate the compromises necessary for Islamist groups to accept their minority status, modify ideology for pragmatism, and form a coalition with other parties in order to secure political power.
The experience of Islamic parties throughout the Muslim world suggests a strong correlation between participation in elections and a party’s political maturity. In semi-authoritarian regimes such as Jordan, Egypt and Yemen, which restrict political participation, Islamist groups have often emerged as advocates for democratisation. In Egypt, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood has utilised parliamentary privilege as a tactic to expose the regime’s brutal suppression of opposition and to demand democratic reform.
The record is not all one way. There have been instances in which the election of Islamist parties has aggravated political division. The election of Hamas in Palestine has led to factional violence and the purging of opposition Fatah supporters from the security forces and government. However, exclusion and suppression is not a solution. The failure of Hamas to deliver its election promises and move away from its violent ideology has resulted in its approval rating sliding to 35 per cent, below that of the secular opposition, Fatah. Hamas needs to transform its behaviour if it hopes to remain in government democratically.
As long as authoritarian governments restrict political participation, Islamist groups throughout the Middle East will continue to radicalise. Participation in electoral politics forces radical Islamist groups to alter their behaviour and objectives. As Islamists throughout the Middle East seek to compete in elections, policy-makers must dispel the false choice between dictators and terrorists, and embrace the opportunity to instil liberal civic virtue.
