The Last Seminar: Democracy's Fall in Turkey

In reflection, my last seminar was a rather daunting yet enjoyable closure to three years of undergraduate study at the University of Exeter. Indeed it followed a similar pattern to all my contact hours, as very few had read the readings, the presentations seemed to drift over the class, and it ended with a rather broad discussion about democracy. If you do not know the readings just ramble on about current affairs, it works every time.

Equally, when stating my views on democracy promotion in the Middle East I caused a little bit of tension as usual. Brilliant. I enjoy when someone in the class decides to make it their mission to prove that you are wrong, and quite often they do this in a somewhat belligerent manner. However, if I have learnt anything in three years it is that facts can be drawn from many different sources, some truthful and other's simply made up with conviction. If you feel that it is wrong then research it, politics students are adept at making things up.

The question was 'Is it right to pinpoint China as the state to democratise?

Basically, should we be embarking on a global policy or targeting China because we believe that once it falls the rest of the authoritarian world will follow?

There are arguments for both sides -

If we succeed will it be a proper democracy? There is difference between having elections and them being competitive, fair, free, and regular. If we based a democracy on simply elections then Afghanistan, Syria, and North Korea are little fledgling democracies. Only this month Kim-Jong-un won 100% of the votes in his district... he must have a superb campaigns team.

Yet, China supports North Korea economically and under a democracy perhaps it may begin to impose sanctions? This would make the regimes stability very weak and may lead to the end of the current dictatorship. The fall of North Korea would weaken the stability of other regimes as North Korea is seen by the international community as the most repressive state.

And so on....

Could this vital trade recede under a democratised China?

So you are probably wondering what I said to ignite the class in fevered discussion?

Simply, I noticed that democratisation tends to follow where American interests lie. Whether that is in South America, the Middle East, or Central Asia. No one disagreed with that. But, when I added that perhaps democracy does not suit the Middle East due to a different culture I may as well have been in court.

'What do you mean?' they heckled. 'You are simply regressing back to orientalist thought.'

However, yesterday I felt vindicated from this onslaught by the Turkish governments attempt to block twitter and YouTube. The AK party, the Justice and Development Party, was heralded as an example that democracy and Islam could work in the Middle East (or Near East). Yet, after this week many have been left wondering whether this will ever become a reality?

So, do you think democracy can work in the Middle East?

As the war rages in Syria, Egypt is unstable, and the Gulf states maintain their rule with the proceeds from oil, democracy's future has never looked more turbulent.

Has Egypt's Arab Spring Returned Back to its Source?

The news today marks a return to an Egyptian nation of the past. Nearly three years ago President Mubarak was removed and many believed the grip of military on the government to be in decline. As General Abdel Fatah al-Sisi announces his predictable candidacy in the upcoming elections has Egypt really changed or has it returned to its pre-revolution roots?

This article will argue that the Egyptians have grown tired of the revolution and are willing to sacrifice some liberties for stability. Yet, how they view their relationship to the state has altered, they see themselves as citizens rather than subjects. General al-Sisi must tread carefully if he is to retain power in this turbulent state.

In political theory protracted violence often leads citizens to demand a strong leader to resolve conflict and restore a sense of purpose to the state.  Evidently they want reform but continuous violence disrupts their economy and when foreign investment declines and businesses suffer many protesters begin to be concerned about how they will eat rather than political change. The 98% who voted yes for the new constitution in Egypt substantiates this mentality.

General al-Sisi has become a figurehead for stability in Egypt

The Muslim Brotherhood still detest the current situation but due to their lack of political prerogative they have resorted to violence and protest to secure their demands. Regretfully, without a political manner of expressing their opinions against a strong militarised state this is largely ineffective.

On ‘The World Tonight’ Ritula Shah asks Mona Makram Ebeid, lecturer at the American University in Cairo, what al-Sisi will be like as a leader and highlights his previous role as the former intelligence chief for President Mubarak.

She states that he ‘is the people’s choice’ and this is not widely debated. But, Tarek Radwan, Associate Director of the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, argues the military background of al-Sisi means he will look at issues from this relatively strong and repressive perspective. Ebeid contends that al-Sisi is more savvy then this and he will have to be. The Egyptians are well aware of their rights.

Research concerning coups suggests that once a coup occurs it then justifies subsequent coups. One regime has fallen to the people, surely another can?  If al-Sisi becomes President he will have to contend between the demands of the military and the people. If the military perceive him as becoming a weak leader they will remove him and if the people grow tired of his rule they will protest. What complicates the matter is that it is the military that breed corruption in Egypt as they dominate the government posts. Real democracy is impossible in this climate of officership.

(Steven Cook’s book entitled ‘Ruling But Not Governing: The Military and Political Development in Egypt, Algeria and Turkey’ covers military rule in greater detail)

The Egyptian Army has a stake in political decisions and is far from apolitical.

True democracy looks unlikely for the Egyptian people but the protests have warned politicians that the people are able to act. Whether al-Sisi's election will lead to tighter repression or a gradual and controlled opening up of the state is uncertain in this present climate but he has a difficult task ahead.

The Ukrainian Protests and Musings on the State of the EU

At the end of 2013 the Ukrainian government voted to further ties with Russia and reject a deal to strengthen links with the EU. The New Year has heralded mass protest, captivated the world media and destabilised the country as a whole.

This article will look at what makes the EU so attractive to join, Russia’s policy towards its previous Soviet states and whether the EU membership is simply a unifying purpose that opposition leaders are utilising for political progress.

Is the EU the perfect suitor?

It has been a difficult partnership for any states which consider the EU to not be ‘perfect’ per say. The UK has not had good relations with the EU as it seeks to remain independent and dependent – holding this balance is difficult. Likewise, as you move further East states are locked between the might of the EU and the Russians. Both powers carry advantages to cooperating with them.

With fears over the EU typified by Greece's economic turmoil, why are states still eager to join?

Simply economics, grants and freedom of travel between countries have helped states starve off turmoil.

Poland is a prime example of a flourishing state which has adopted wholeheartedly the European Union mechanisms to boost its economy. Reading a 2008 document published by the Polish Government it suggest that the membership helped reduce unemployment from 20% in 2003 to 11.4% by the end of 2007. This was accompanied by a nominal rise in salaries by 58%

From this case example we could conclude that the EU is economically beneficial.

Poland a shining example of EU integration

Not so quick…

The EU has an economic problem as it seeks to make states economically similar to allow freedom of trade. This works when the global economic system is growing. However, logically if economic decline ensues then the similarity of the EU has led economic suffering. Daniel Hannan aptly articulates this when he discusses Spain:

“Nowhere is the failure of the euro clearer than in Spain. A country which was running a budget surplus going into the crash has been reduced to penury and squalor by the determination of its own political class, and Europe's, to maintain the monetary union at any cost. Who has gained? Bankers and Eurocrats. Who has lost? Everyone else.”

Moreover, economists used to believe that an economic monoculture insinuated a positive economic climate but following the economic crash they have turned to the lessons of nature. Indeed a 2009 Bank of England report summarises an argument I have been suggesting for a number of years:

“In consequence, the financial system became, like plants, animals and oceans before it, less disease-resistant. When environmental factors changed for the worse, the homogeneity of the financial eco-system increased materially its probability of collapse.”

Ergo, an economy based on a single currency and economic model makes the states within the EU less resistant to economic shocks.

Has this currency debased our individual economies?

Returning to the Ukraine the economic growth which the EU membership offers seems attractive. Yet, if it is the economy that is a concern then surely the 15 billion dollar bailout from Russia would resolve the dissent and the cut in gas prices is bound to appease protesters?

In the Ukraine the riots have little to do with the economy. The Ukrainians want democracy and see closer ties with Russia as a suppression of their rights as substantiated by the recent anti-protest laws.

(On a side note, Putin’s claim that they are simply helping their ‘brothers’ in the Ukraine and the bailout had nothing to do with the government E-turn on the EU seems unlikely… the coincidence is too high to be an accident.)

What is concerning is that joining the European Union may be being used by the Ukrainian opposition as a unifying focus to join groups together against the current government. They know that by doing this they will draw in the media and tap into the current discussion about joining the EU. The Ukrainians are tired of a corrupt government but by using the EU they debase the organisation. If it is associated with regime-change rather than democracy then the EU has not become a vehicle of democracy but an opportunity for opposition parties. The EU cannot afford to pick sides or the whole concept is threatened.

Democracy or regime change?

I may be overly pessimistic about the oppositions intentions and my political musings could become unfounded. Yet, my experience of politics has taught me to ask these questions, no matter how absurd.

The future of the EU is questionable and democracy promotion is complicated. The battle for Ukraine continues on its snow swept streets.

Violence Spirals in Bangladesh as the General Election Looms

As extreme weather batters the coast of Britain the exhausted people of Bangladesh face another day of violence. No, it is not terrorist organisations (well these ones are technically democratic parties) unleashing a swath of violence but the general election tomorrow. This should be when the one hundred and fifty million people of Bangladesh celebrate their right to vote, coming together to decide the future of their country but instead it is marred by a 48-hour ‘hartal’ (closure of shops and offices) in addition to national blockades on vital infrastructure.  Allegedly this will help to ‘win the right of the people to vote’ but rather it seems the whole country is under lock and key.

Fighting increase in the streets of Dhaka

For two women, Prime Minister Hasina and the former Prime Minister Khalenda Zia, this is a power struggle. Since uniting to throw off the dictatorial rule of Hussein Mohammed Ershad in 1990, they have been determined to instigate democracy, secure rights and to advocate democracy. So why is there such violence? Why did Hasina refuse to allow a caretaker government to take over as the polls were contested?

Understanding their intentions is difficult at the moment as campaigning laws mean that news channels and foreign reporters are unable to talk to government officials and opposition leaders… freedom of press is certainly embodied in this one? Tricky.

So, let us introduce our political adversaries to the ring.

The Parties

The Bangladesh Awami League, the current ruling party, stylises itself as the leading ‘pro-liberation’ force based on nationalism and a celebration of Bengali culture. In the Nielsen two year survey, fifty percent felt the country was moving in the right direction and thirty six percent gave it a favourable rating. It led the nationalist struggle against Pakistan.

The BAL election symbol

The Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the largest opposition party, is not that divergent from the Awani League. It combines nationalist, liberal and left-wing elements which are opposed to the ruling party. It has been involved in major liberalisation of Bangladesh but has been part of a controversial Four Party Alliance with two hard-line Islamist parties, Jamaat-e-Islami and Islami Oikya Jote.

The BNP election symbol

They are rather similar parties, with the BNP representing a more Islamic take on politics. However, often arguments between these two women have caused difficulties. At the last election Zia stopped her party from sitting in parliament over the seating arrangements. Right? Now tell us the real reason.

Caretaker Governments

These governments taking over whilst elections occur is the norm in Bangladesh. Hasina decided it was time that this law was revoked.

Though many cite the refusal to let a caretaker government take over as undemocratic I can see why Hasina changed the rules.

You only need to look back at the impact of the last election to realise that in 2007 the caretaker government was weak, perceived as unable to resist a takeover by the BNP, and eventually it declared a state of emergency following the Awami withdrawal from the election. It enabled the military to have influence in the political sphere which is against democratic values.

Likewise, special protection for the Awami and BNP was removed by the caretaker government.

Unrest leads to a heavy handed response from the police.

Parties withdrawing from general elections is clearly a common occurrence in Bangladeshi politics and not simply because a caretaker government was not implemented. Furthermore, caretaker governments are not elected in the United Kingdom during elections though our elections do have less of a chance of being fixed (maybe that was a bit naïve, gerrymandering would certainly count). Yes, the argument that the election could be manipulated by the Awami party is topical and we have witnessed it in other states in similar positions. Yet, we will never know as the BNP have boycotted the election.

Most of Bangladesh would like to see a competitive election and an end to this infighting.

Why Violence?

Violence in Bangladesh has grown out of a secular vs religious conflict as the BNP continues to further align itself with more extreme Islamic parties.

This is a trend that is common across the world at the moment. A battle of the religions.

The issue is that the more extreme parties under the BNP have never won an election so feel that violence is the only course of action to win recognition. For the government to give into these demands and give power to these groups legitimises this channel of expression and encourages others to resort to violence. Therefore, as scores of opposition supporters die in police shooting and commuters have been burnt to death by protestors in strike-defying buses, there seems little hope for a peaceful election.

The Future

Following my research in democratisation I do not put much hope in elections unless they imbed themselves into a truly competitive, free, fair and regular atmosphere.  In fact we see issues with our own political system all the time, the expenses scandal and gerrymandering are a prime example. But, I do believe that this election should have been able to run its course with both parties involved. This is not an authoritarian regime hoping to cement its control by allowing a little more freedom but two women striving for democracy. I fear that their struggle may impede its progression.

Keep an eye on the elections tomorrow despite the flooding at home because the next month of Bangladeshi politics promises to be interesting.