Arab democracy would simply be inconceivable without Islamist participation, writes Brookings analyst Shadi Hamid. That, by itself, should give us pause, particularly at a time when Western democracies appear uninterested or even hostile to either democracy promotion or integrating Islamists, or perhaps even both, he contends:
The perennial question of whether democracy can work in the Middle East isn’t always easy to answer. Generally, it hasn’t worked. But amid civil war in Yemen, Libya, and Syria, authoritarian resurgence in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and economic instability in Jordan, there are at least three cases that challenge the notion that it can’t happen here. Tunisia, which held its first post-
revolution municipal elections in May, continues to be a (relative) bright spot. Then there are the more unlikely cases of Iraq as well as Lebanon—probably the world’s most successful failed state. All three share two related features: Largely without controversy, they include Islamist parties in their democratic processes; and, second, they feature some degree of power-sharing.
But the bottom line, at least for now, is that the lived practice of democracy can still provide a counterpoint to an authoritarian status quo that often seems unyielding and overwhelming. And in each of these cases, democracy would simply be inconceivable without Islamist participation, Hamid writes in a piece which originally appeared in The Atlantic. That, by itself, should give us pause, particularly at a time when Western democracies appear uninterested or even hostile to either democracy promotion or integrating Islamists, or perhaps even both.
