Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
More than 4,000 candidates from a wide range of political parties declared their
candidacy for one of 454 seats in Egypt’s parliament. Activists took to the streets and
openly campaigned, unmolested by the authorities even when they denounced the
government under the eyes of passing policemen. One major opposition party, the
Muslim Brotherhood, hoped to gain two to five times their current number of seats in
parliament.1
A year later in Jordan, opposition parties are even more confident. They declare
that in a fair election, they would receive forty to fifty percent of the vote. The victory of
Hamas over the incumbent Palestinian Authority just to Jordan’s west has them
convinced that they can win, too. “We are in a peaceful battle for change,” declares Zaki
Sa’ed, an Islamist opposition leader. “We represent the will of the majority of Jordanians
who seek change.” Opposition candidates are boldly criticizing the government, accusing
it of being corrupt and undemocratic and calling for drastic political and social reforms.2
The liberalizing Jordanian monarch has reduced the machinery of state repression and
hopes that the upcoming election will mark “a watershed in this pro-American kingdom’s
That same year, five hundred miles to the east, the opposition is not hoping to
1
Salah Nasrawi, “Islam Takes Center Stage in Egypt Election,” The Washington Post, 5
November 2005. Accessed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110500891_pf.html
2
Thanassis Cambanis, “Jordan’s Islamists see a path to political power,” The Boston
Globe, 21 March 2006. Accessed at
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/03/21/jordans_islamists_see
_a_path_to_political_power?mode=PF
3
Thanassis Cambanis, “Jordan, fearing Islamists, tightens grip on elections,” The New
York Times, 11 November 2007. Accessed at
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/world/middleeast/11jordan.html?
ref=world&pagewanted=print
1
succeed in parliamentary elections—they already did. Kuwait’s summer elections turned
out a resounding victory for the opposition coalition, which won 33 of the 50 seats, an
absolute majority in the parliament. It was a “crushing defeat for government supporters,”
according to one analyst, noting that the opposition came in first place in 21 of the 25
multi-member districts, sweeping ten of them.4 Moreover, this election had the broadest
including voting rights, to women, making it the first ever Kuwaiti election with
Was this a wave of democracy sweeping across the Arab world to warm the heart
of U.S. President George W. Bush? In the spring of 2005, Bush had famously declared
that “democracy is on the march” in the Middle East and that authoritarianism was “the
last gasp of a discredited past.”6 In his State of the Union address earlier that year, Bush
So were these events in Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait, as well as other countries and
4
Oman Hasan, “Election results leave Kuwait grappling with tough options,” Agence
France Presse, 1 July 2006. Accessed at http://www.arabnews.com/?
page=7§ion=0&article=84651&d=1&m=7&y=2006
5
Anway Syed, “Kuwait’s road to democracy,” Pakistan Dawn, 13 August 2006.
Accessed at http://www.dawn.com/2006/08/13/op.htm
6
“Bush: Democracy is on the march,” CBS News, 8 March 2005. Accessed at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/08/politics/main678778.shtml
7
George W. Bush, “State of the Union Address,” 2 February 2005. Accessed at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050202-11.html
2
regions like Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Iraq and Saudi Arabia a sign of
time elections arrived in Egypt, voters were met at the polling stations by police firing
tear gas and rubber bullets to keep them away and avoid a strong showing by the Muslim
Brotherhood.9 In Jordan, the same Hamas victory that emboldened the Islamist opposition
also silenced liberal reform demands and frightened the government, which banned some
opponents from running for parliament and was accused of open electoral fraud.10 Even
in Kuwait, the newly elected opposition government has no control over government and
can be dismissed at the will of the emir.11 Moreover, the supposed “pro-democratic”
opposition is dominated by Islamists, most of whom oppose expanded political rights for
women and might take steps to curtail their franchise once in power.12 Democracy in the
In this paper, I will examine the question of Arab democracy in more detail,
examining its current state and future prospects through a comparative study of three
different Arab countries: Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait. Although there are numerous
Arab world in particular, I will make use of two principal theories of democratization:
modernization theory and transition studies. More specifically, I contend that the chances
8
Freedom House ratings, 2007. Egypt receives a 6 out of 7 for Political Rights and a 5
out of 7 for Civil Liberties, Jordan a 5 for Political Rights and a 4 for Civil Liberties, and
Kuwait a 4 for both. Accessed at http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?
page=22&year=2007&country=7203
9
Daniel Williams, “Police attack voters during last day of Egypt election,” The
Washington Post, 8 December 2005. Accessed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/12/07/AR2005120702611_pf.html
10
Cambanis, “Jordan, fearing militants…”
11
Syed.
12
“Kuwait hastens women’s vote bill,” BBC News, 6 March 2005. Accessed at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4325207.stm
3
for democratic transition and consolidation in the Arab world depend principally on a
As a brief cautionary note, the subjects dealt with in this paper are all expansive
and each worthy of entire books. I will address them in sections of several pages.
Obviously this falls far short of an ideal analytic richness. However, the aim of this paper
is not to treat any one state or theory in depth but to compare different states through
multiple prisms in the hope of getting a fuller overview of the prospects for democracy
economic development. Increased national wealth is held to lead to “an educated middle
some modernization theorists focus on the connection between wealth and democracy
and try to post “an overly simple and lineal relationship between [development] and
democracy,”14 other writers place their emphasis on the intermediary role of mass values.
The most prominent proponent of this approach is Ronald Inglehart, the director
of the World Values Survey. Inglehart, through his extensive survey research data, finds
development have similar values, as modernization theory predicted. Instead of one linear
13
Jean Grugel, Democratization: A Critical Introduction (Houndmills and New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 47.
14
Grugel, 48-49. Grugel wrote of modernization as focusing on “capitalism” rather than
“development,” but I believe that this is an overly narrow reading of modernization
theory. Many other modernization theorists like Lipset (1959) and Inglehart (2005b) do
not focus on capitalism.
4
progression from undeveloped and undemocratic to developed and democratic, as earlier
theorists hypothesized, Inglehart finds that values change in two axes. Industrialization
industrialization and the rise of the consumer-based economy cause values to be focused
on “self-expression” rather than simple survival.15 These self-expression values form the
homosexuality is sometimes justifiable, being willing to sign petitions, and being trusting
variation in Freedom House rankings for individual countries. They also explain 89
percent of the variation in the World Bank’s “anti-corruption” scores, which Inglehart
defines as a measure of “elite integrity” and uses as a shorthand for how effectively a
additional way: he brings national culture back in. He rejects arguments that one culture
or another can never support democratic values, but does find that culture has a
15
Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change and
Democracy: The Human Development Sequence (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2005), 1-5.
16
Ibid., 3.
17
Ibid., 51.
18
Ibid., 150-157.
5
significant impact on individuals’ values. Inglehart finds that “value systems … continue
values helps to explain the huge differences that exist in how institutions perform in
societies around the world.”19 Pertinent to this paper, Inglehart and Welzel found that
Islamic countries tended to report scores .71 points lower on a four-point scale for self-
expression values (the ones that correlate so strongly with support for democracy) than
I will use Inglehart’s theory and survey data to project the prospects for
democracy in my three subject countries. In general Inglehart finds that Muslim opinions
towards women and homosexuals, among other values, reflects a current lack of
emphasis on self-expression values that suggest a poor outlook for Middle Eastern
countries and among my three subject countries, and more advanced economic
In my analysis of the political culture of Arab countries I will also rely heavily on
the research of Moataz Fattah, who has surveyed more than 30,000 literate Muslims all
around the world in an attempt to determine the degree to which “Muslim values” affect
views of democracy, and how this varies from country to country. While his data is
subject to the enormous caveat that it applied only to the population of literate Muslims, I
do not believe this will notably affect results. Adult literacy rates in my subject countries
are 71.4 percent in Egypt, 89.9 percent in Jordan, and 93.3 percent in Kuwait.22 While
19
Ibid., 4.
20
Ibid., 74.
21
Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, “The True Clash of Civilizations,” Foreign Policy
135 (2003), 62-70.
22
The 2008 CIA World Factbook, accessed 4 May 2008 at
6
Egypt’s illiterate population is worryingly large, in both countries the population of
literate Muslims ranges from a large majority to a near totality of the total population, and
certainly an even larger proportion of Muslim elites who drive popular opinion.
Fattah found that Muslims fell into one of four general groups. Traditionalist
compatible with Islam,” which they usually call “Islamic democracy.” Secularists “do not
worry about how compatible their ideal system is with Islamic labels” but can themselves
be divided into two camps: the “autocratic statists” (“statists”) and the “liberal pluralists”
while modernists and pluralists are supportive of it. Thus Fattah concludes that a society
where modernists and pluralists outnumber traditionalists and statists is more likely to
democratize than one that is not, because of the presence of a pro-democratic majority.
institutions (elections and voting) and support for democratic norms (political
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html
23
Moataz A. Fattah, Democratic Values in the Muslim World (Boulder: Westview Press,
Inc., 2006), 9. Italics in original.
24
Ibid., 38.
25
Ibid., 4.
7
in explaining the state of and prospects for democracy in the Arab world. Democracy, as
a government nominally “of the people,” clearly will not thrive without popular support.
behavior, but not so good at predicting how individual actors will behave at particular,
important moments where the fate of a country can hang in the balance. Put another way,
modernization can predict (as Inglehart does) whether or not a particular country is likely
to become democratic within the next decade or two, but not whether or not it is likely to
undergo a democratic revolution in the next year or how that revolution will turn out. It is
for that reason that I have paired my modernization analysis of my subject countries with
interactions, pacts and bargains struck between authoritarian leaders and the democratic
opposition. These deals led to a ‘transition’ … in which the institutional rules are laid
down for the practice of democracy.”26 In the foundational work for transition studies,
Guillermo O’Donnell and Philippe Schmitter argue for a crucial distinction amongst
former “believe that the perpetuation of authoritarian rule is possible and desirable, if not
by rejecting outright all democratic forms, then by erecting some façade behind which
they can maintain inviolate the hierarchical and authoritarian nature of their power.” The
latter develop the “increasing awareness that the regime … in which they usually occupy
important positions, will have to make use … of some degree or some form of electoral
legitimation,” and that the longer such reforms are delayed the more dangerous the
26
Grugel, 57.
8
situation becomes for the regime.27 A key part of the transition approach is that during the
transition, and particularly during the sensitive early stages, the “hard-liners” have the
ability to use coercive force to stop the transition. If the soft-liners are not strong enough,
then the transition is much more difficult, if not impossible; the hard-liners simply squash
any moves towards democracy. Thus transition to democracy requires divisions among
Looking specifically at Arab countries, Michael Herb used the transition studies
states. Herb concluded that the institutional structures of particular states strongly affect
the robustness and unity of a regime. Most specifically, he found that some Arab
monarchy,” where the ruling family develops “mechanisms to distribute and redistribute
power among their shaykhs and princes, without drawing outsiders into family disputes.
At the same time, these families preserve their tight grip over state power” by
monopolizing control of the state organs to members of the ruling family. The effect is to
unify the regime and prevent the crucial “hard-liner” faction from emerging. Herb
concludes that “a ruling class which has a mechanism to regulate its own internal
conflicts, which dominates a modern state, and which can attract at least some support
within society, is extremely hard to overthrow,”29 though he holds out some hope for top-
down liberalization. Non-dynastic monarchies, such as Jordan’s, are much less stable;
27
Guillermo O’Donnell and Philippe C. Schmitter, “Tentative Conclusions about
Uncertain Democracies,” in Transitions from Authoritarian Rule, edited by Guillermo
O’Donnell, Phillippe C. Schmitter and Laurence Whitehead (Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1986), 16.
28
Ibid., 23-28.
29
Michael Herb, All In The Family: Absolutism, Revolution And Democracy In The
Middle Eastern Monarchies (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999), 4.
9
loyalty to the king can provide some strength, but in general “the strategic choices of the
monarchs take on a far greater importance, because these kings have a much smaller
Using Herb’s work as a guide within the broader framework of transition studies,
I will examine the regime and opposition forces in my three subject countries. Important
factors will be the strength, character and unity of both “opposition” and “regime” forces
in the state, and how state institutions affect both that present balance of power and how
that balance may change in the future. In general, I argue that the likelihood of a
regime elites remain unified and by the willingness of dissidents to join the opposition.
Over the remainder of this paper, I will first do a brief comparison of the
socioeconomic situation in Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait. After that, I will take each country
one by one in case studies, examining their democratic nature and prospects through the
twin prisms of modernization theory (and specifically political culture) and transition
studies. Finally I will conclude by revisiting the future prospects for democratization for
Generally speaking, the Arab world is divided into two types of states by
socioeconomic status: the small, oil-rich Gulf states on the one hand and everyone else on
the other. While states like Iran, Iraq and Egypt have significant oil reserves, they also
have large populations and substantial poverty. In contrast, states like the United Arab
Emirates, Qatar and Kuwait have large oil reserves compared to their populations and
have largely eliminated poverty among their citizens through lavish state spending and
30
Ibid., 233.
10
the exploitation of large armies of non-citizen migrant workers.31
general situation in which each country is situated. They will also be of vital importance
below for applying modernization theory, which holds that a country’s chances for
Of the three countries, Kuwait is notably richer and more developed than both the
oil-producing Egypt and the oil-bereft Jordan, though all three states have made
significant developmental strides in the last forty years. Kuwait currently has an adjusted
Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDP/capita) of $26,321, richer than some European
Union members like the Czech Republic, Greece and Slovenia. Jordan and Egypt are
The three states have different economic foundations. Kuwait’s economy is based almost
entirely around the export of petroleum, which it does to the tune of 2.2 million barrels
per day. It also has a substantial service sector, contributing 45 percent of GDP versus 55
31
See, for example, The CIA World Factbook and many other sources. These general
claims will also be expanded upon below for my subject countries.
32
United Nations Human Development Report, 2007, 229-232.
33
CIA World Factbook
11
Figure 1. Human Development Index
scores since 1975.
day and also exports cotton, textiles and metal products.34
Jordan, alone of the three states, does not have petroleum reserves, or any other
substantial natural resources. 85 percent of its GDP comes from the service sector,
donations from richer oil-producing Arab states. These two sources of income combined
contribute close to 30 percent of the Jordanian GDP (with the bulk from remittances).36
This economic data does not tell the whole development tale. Despite their
moderate wealth, Jordan and Egypt have made substantial investments in the human
Report ranked all three countries on a host of factors including economic strength and the
health and welfare and education of their populations (see Figure 1). The Human
Development Index includes three categories: “high development” for a score of at least
0.8, “medium development” for a score between 0.5 and 0.8, and “low development” for
a score below 0.5. In 1980, Egypt was a low development country with a score of 0.434.
Jordan was slightly better at 0.647 and Kuwait more developed still at 0.789. In 2005,
Kuwait had risen to be one of the most highly developed countries in the world at 0.891,
while Jordan and Egypt had also made great strides in rising to .773 and .708,
respectively.37
As these rankings indicate, Kuwait qualifies as a very rich country that has used
its resources to benefit its citizens. Egypt and Jordan are less well off, but should not be
considered to be desperately poor. While they both have moderately high poverty rates
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid.
36
Warwick Knowles, Jordan Since 1989: A Study in Political Economy (New York: J.B.
Tauris, 2005), 89.
37
Ibid., 234-237.
12
(20 percent for Egypt, 14.2 percent for Jordan), they also feature substantial (if often
ineffective) state services and sizeable middle classes.38 Of additional note are the
educational attainments in the three countries. In addition to the literacy rates discussed
above, 78.1 percent of eligible Jordanian children and 76.9 percent of Egyptian children
are enrolled in some form of education—figures even higher than the Kuwaiti total, 74.9
percent. All three countries have large educated, literate populations—larger than those
A. Overview: Egypt is one of the largest and most important countries in the Arab
world, due in large part to its strategic location controlling the Sinai land bridge between
Africa and Eurasia, the Suez Canal (which offers a nautical shortcut on the route to Asia),
and its proximity to Israel. As a partial result of this prominent role, Egypt has had a
tumultuous political history. Prior to World War II, Egypt had a British-supported
monarchy with a weak aristocracy. Herb describes the situation: a “king, with his cronies
at the palace, ruled and presided over a corrupt parliamentary system.” The army was
autonomous, its ranks pulled from the urban middle class and not the ruling elite. To
make matters worse, the last king, Faruq, was notoriously incompetent.40 He was finally
Nasser ruled Egypt until his death in 1970. While in power, he nationalized much
of the economy and launched major state-driven development schemes that had positive
social effects but were “not spectacular” economically and driven by foreign aid from the
Soviet Union. Abroad Nasser promoted himself, and Egypt, as leaders in the Pan-
38
World Bank Indicators (accessed at http://www.worldbank.org); CIA Factbook
39
UN Human Development Report, 229-231.
40
Herb, 210-212.
13
Arabism movement that sought to unify the Arab world in a single state. This led to an
aborted union with Syria and embroiled Nasser in the disastrous 1967 war with Israel.41
After Nasser’s death, his lieutenant Anwar Sadat became Egypt’s leader. Sadat
launched a liberalization drive, opening up the economy with an “Open Door” policy and
angry over Sadat’s peace treaty with Israel.42 Sadat’s successor, Hosni Mubarak, has
continued Sadat’s economic reforms while rolling back his political openings. Egypt has
remained under a state of emergency since Sadat’s assassination, and Egypt’s elections
makeup. 90 percent of the population is Muslim with the rest largely Coptic Christians;
the latter used to live peacefully but have been subject to rising violence in recent years.44
GDP/capita, is not entirely industrialized and is Muslim, which has a depressing effect on
self-expression values. On an aggregate level, Egypt scored in the 2000 World Values
axis. Inglehart and Welzel’s model actually predicted a regression in 2005 (the 2005
survey has not yet been publicly released), with a -1.57 on the secular axis and a -0.59 on
41
Peter Johnson, “Egypt Under Nasser,” in MERIP Reports (1972), 3-14.
42
Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Egypt, Islam and Democracy: Critical Essays (Cairo: The
American University in Cairo Press, 2002), 35-53.
43
Ibid., 69-81.
44
CIA World Factbook
45
Inglehart and Welzel, Internet Appendix.
14
However, this is not the only way to look at Egyptian values. In addition to
compiling a mean score, Inglehart and Welzel also calculated the percentage of the
percent of the population fell on the self-expression side of the axis, which is about the
same as Venezuela, Peru, South Korea and Portugal. When Inglehart and Welzel plotted
underperformed, with levels of freedom far lower than popular values would predict. This
suggests that Egypt is due for at least some formal democratization over the long term
because its government is out of tune with the beliefs of its people. It would not take very
model: “any society in which more than half the population emphasizes self-expression
Inglehart and Welzel’s measure of “effective” democracy (this is to say, elite corruption),
Egypt is a poor performer, ranking among the most corrupt countries in the world. Even
if Egypt were to acquire formal democratic institutions, Inglehart and Welzel do not
preferences for democratic institutions in the Muslim world (higher even than Muslims
living in the United States) and also show high support for “democratic values.”47 Most
strikingly, among the literate Egyptian Muslims he surveyed, only three percent fell into
46
Ibid., 153-155.
47
Fattah, 89.
15
Algerians and 46 percent of Saudi Arabians) and another seven percent into the statist
percent secular pluralists, for a total of 89 percent belonging to ideological groups that
Juxtaposing Fattah’s surveys showing high support among literate Egyptians for
democratic norms and institutions with Inglehart and Welzel’s showing low aggregate
support for democratic norms but a sizeable chunk of the population emphasizing self-
expression values, it seems a fair assumption that the 70 percent of Egyptians who are
literate are more supportive of democracy than the 30 percent who are not. It seems fair
to conclude from a political culture viewpoint that Egyptians as a whole would prefer that
their government were more democratic than it currently is. Inglehart and Welzel believe
that institutions follow values; unless Egyptian values turn sharply against democracy in
the near future, their formula would predict a liberalization (if not democratization) of
democracy, that might not occur unless the pro-democratic agents can build a strong
enough liberalizing coalition to overcome the autocratic elements in the Egyptian state
and society. Of crucial importance will be the strength and unity of regime and
opposition forces.
Looking first at the regime, the most obvious and crucial pro-regime actor is the
military. Eva Bellin argues that in Egypt, it can be difficult to even distinguish between
the military and the regime, “because the head of state is … closely allied with the
coercive apparatus and highly dependent on coercion to maintain power. The mutual
48
Ibid., 29.
16
controls … endow each with a measure of veto power over the other and make it difficult
to tease out who exercises superior agency in the dyad.”49 As Bellin indicates, Egypt’s
government is on one level a military dictatorship, albeit one with some democratic
features like elections (however unfair and unfree) and a multiparty parliament. Because
of this, the support of the military is absolutely essential for regime survival against
Bellin suggests that the military has been well-treated by the Mubarak regime and
would be unlikely to desert it. When Egypt, as part of an International Monetary Fund
restructuring, cut popular subsidies of basic goods by 14 percent, this “did not prevent the
regime from increasing the military budget by 22 percent that very same year.” As a
result, “even if the country is in poor economic health overall, the state is still able to …
‘pay itself first,’ that is, give first priority to paying the military and security forces.”50
On the other hand, where some countries have bound the military to the regime
through patrimonialism—placing relatives and key supporters who have a stake in the
of acting independently. Herb and others agree with Bellin that: “where the coercive
apparatus is institutionalized, the security elite have a sense of corporate identity separate
from the state. They have a distinct mission and identity and career path. Officers can
imagine separation from the state.”51 They have O’Donnell and Schmitter find that where
the military is professionalized and independent, “the only route to political democracy is
49
Eva Bellin, “Coercive Institutions and Coercive Leaders,” in Authoritarianism in the
Middle East: Regimes and Resistance, ed. Marsha P. Posusney and Michele P. Angrist
(Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005), 26.
50
Ibid., 32.
51
Ibid., 29.
17
a pacific and negotiated one.”52 It is conceivable (despite the close ties between regime
and army) that the military could switch to the opposition or remain neutral during a
transition.
Another key support pillar for the regime is the landed elite. Since Sadat
rehabilitated them, the Egyptian bourgeoisie has expanded to control more than 64
percent of total private investments in the country. Currently, the elite largely support the
regime but use their influence to press for liberal economic reforms. The elite have also
become involved in politics, usually as part of the ruling party but not infrequently as part
of the centrist opposition Wafd party. Regardless of which party they publicly support,
the elite “generally advocate the same socioeconomic policies.”53 This elite class would
seem to fit O’Donnell and Schmitter’s model of “soft-liners” who support the regime
rule. Any sort of transition involving the landed elite in the role of soft-liners will involve
serious trade-offs, however, because the “disadvantaged and the more deprived,” holding
the bourgeoisie “responsible for Egypt’s problems” may have redistributional demands if
The opposition to the regime is also crucial to any possible transition. But even
where a regime is unpopular, the opposition can be weak, fragmented and incapable of
working with the soft-liners to bring about democracy. In Egypt there are three principal
opposition groups: the secular political parties, the violent Islamists, and the pacifist
Egypt’s secular political parties are largely a sorry bunch. Michele P. Angrist
52
O’Donnell and Schmitter, 34.
53
Ibrahim, 127-130.
54
Ibid., 130.
18
argues that the Egyptian government has emasculated the political power of opposition
seats … Included oppositionists are reluctant to persist in mobilizing the masses for fear
of jeopardizing the regimes preferential treatment of them and out of concern that such
body that must approve all new political parties “has only granted one party licence in
twenty-five years” and closed seven of the sixteen official opposition parties since 1998.56
The ruling NDP party is never permitted to fall below a comfortable two-thirds majority
in the parliament, and uses the full control of the state machinery to prevent the secular
opposition parties from posing a serious threat. Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a liberal Egyptian
academic and dissident, notes with dismay (in a chapter written from a prison where he
was serving a seven-year sentence for opposition activities) that “Egypt’s [secular]
democracy advocates are the weakest of the three salient actors at present,” along with
the regime and Islamists, because instead of “viewing them as an ally against extremism,
the state has repeatedly repressed democracy advocates.”57 Unless things change
The violent Islamist groups warrant but a brief word, because they are not
democracy supporters and their victory would probably not lead to democratization.
These groups, like Islamic Jihad, believe that the Egyptian regime is profoundly immoral
and have waged violent war against it, trying to overthrow it through coup attempts and
55
Michele P. Angrist, “The Outlook for Authoritarians,” in Authoritarianism in the
Middle East: Regimes and Resistance, ed. Marsha P. Posusney and Michele P. Angrist
(Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005), 223.
56
Joshua A. Stacher, “Parties Over: The Demise of Egypt’s Opposition Parties,” British
Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 31 (2004), 215-221.
57
Ibrahim, 268.
19
revolutions. Despite the considerable sophistication and strength that these groups have
shown, however, they appear to be capable only of disrupting the state and not destroying
it.58 That is not to say that Islamist militants cannot play a substantial (if inadvertent) role
Sadat), for example, could have a dramatic effect on the rules of the game. Additionally,
by resisting the regime and disrupting the state and economy through terrorism, these
militants could make soft-liners more willing to make minor compromises in the hopes of
The final, and most interesting, opposition group in Egypt is the pacifist Islamists,
and most notably the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a powerful (and illegal) network that
renounced violence in the 1970s. The Brotherhood are embedded in Egyptian society like
no other opposition group and pose the most serious threat to Mubarak’s political
hegemony. The Brotherhood is decentralized and provides vital social services to the
Egyptian people. For example, when the Brotherhood expands into a neighborhood, it
“would first establish a branch headquarters and then immediately begin a public service
project … Muslim Brotherhood public works brought millions of Egyptians into contact
with the organization and its ideology.”59 Even when banned as a political party,
members running as independents routinely form the largest opposition bloc in Egypt’s
parliament. As one demonstration of their clout, in the late 1980s the Brotherhood
systematically took over, through free and fair elections, many of Egypt’s most
58
Ibid., 69-79.
59
Ziad Munson, “Islamic Mobilization: Social Movement Theory and the Egyptian
Muslim Brotherhood,” The Sociological Quarterly 42 (2001), 501.
20
university professors and pharmacists.60
The biggest question with the Brotherhood is not whether they are strong enough
to be a credible opposition organization—if they are not, then no one is, and all
indications are that they are—but what kind of opposition group they would be. On the
one hand, the Brotherhood has, since renouncing violence, consistently endorsed
democratic principles. Brotherhood rhetoric uses terms like “democracy,” “liberty” and
“freedom” “freely and repeatedly,” and the Brotherhood “consistently dismiss the
argument that Islam and democracy are incompatible.”61 Ibrahim notes that the
democracy, but rather because it perceives the regime as halfhearted in this regard.” The
Brotherhood loudly and repeatedly agitates for expanded civil and political rights.62
On the other hand, the Brotherhood’s talk of democracy can sound suspicious to
“Western critics,” notes Sana Abed-Kotob, “are fearful that the Brethren are using
elections as a tactic to gain power and subsequently do away with the democracy that
gave them their voice.”63 Some note with worry the statements of “Shaikh Muhammad al-
Ghazali, a prominent figure in the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt,” that “the penalty for
apostasy in Islam is murder, to be carried out by any Muslim.”64 Sharia law in countries
like Iran, Afghanistan and Sudan has brought with it undemocratic elements. Even
60
Ibrahim, 58-59.
61
Sana Abed-Kotob, “The Accomodationists Speak: Goals and Strategies of the Muslim
Brotherhood of Egypt,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 27 (1995), 325.
62
Ibrahim, 41-42.
63
Abed-Kotob, 330.
64
Mustapha Kamel el-Sayyid, “The Concept of Civil Society and the Arab World,” in
Political Liberalization and Democratization in the Arab World: Volume 1, Theoretical
Perspectives, ed. Rex Brynen, Bahgat Korany and Paul Noble (Boulder: Lynne Rienner
Publishers, 1995), 138.
21
granting the Brotherhood the best of intentions, a Brotherhood-led democracy will
probably contain many objectionable elements to secular liberals. But for democracy
advocates in Egypt, firm military support for the regime means that the Brotherhood is
the only effective opposition group. On the Brotherhood’s good intentions may ride the
A. Overview: While Egypt’s monarchy was overthrown in the 1950s and replaced
took power there in the 1950s, the Hashemites. Prince Abdullah of the Hijaz, whose
family controlled Mecca prior to the Saudis and whose brother Faisal worked with
Lawrence of Arabia in the Arab revolt against the Ottomans in World War I, claimed the
British mandate of Transjordan in 1920 and managed to get British support. He built
Transjordan from a backwater territory into a credible state before being assassinated in
1951. His grandson Hussein eventually acceded to the throne and ruled Jordan for almost
half a century until his death in 1999. Hussein’s son Abdullah II became the new king
Jordan is divided demographically between Bedouin tribes from the East Bank of
the River Jordan, and Palestinian refugees from the West Bank. The former have been
traditionally supportive of the regime while the latter often pose severe difficulties.
democracy than Egypt. It is poorer, with fewer state resources and a heavy reliance on
rentier income for what little cash it has. In the 2000 round of the World Values Surveys
Jordan rated, on aggregate, -1.57 on the secular axis and -1.01 on the self-expression axis.
22
In 2005 Inglehart and Welzel predicted that Jordan’s secular rating would remain the
same while its self-expression value would actually decrease to -1.20.65 Unlike in Egypt,
these aggregate numbers do not mask a large pro-democracy class; only 15 percent of
Jordanians emphasize self-expression values, among the lowest levels of all the countries
of Jordanians say that homosexuality is never justifiable) by a large part of the population
are not counter-balanced (as they are in Egypt) by more progressive values elsewhere in
the population, and Inglehart and Welzel’s modernization model would expect
Fattah is only slightly more optimistic based on his surveys of literate Jordanians.
Islamists, along with nine percent statist. Modernists compose 48 percent of the
population and pluralists 23 percent, which rates toward the middle of the Arab world.
Fattah rates Jordan as having a “medium” democratization potential, versus “high” for
Egypt.68 His Jordanian respondents had strong support for democratic institutions—
23
rather than because of prejudice or bigotry.69
By either Fattah or Inglehart’s metrics, Jordanian political culture does not seem
structural factors could change these norms, but for the time being this divided society
does not seem likely to produce bottom-up pressure for democracy. Any democratization
C. Transition Studies: Jordanian society does not seem ripe for any sort of
bottom-up transition, but the regime has introduced some liberalizing measure in the past
decade. What regime institutions and actors would be willing to tolerate and even support
expanded democratic rights, and what opposition groups (if any) might be willing to
power comes from tradition and inheritance, not policy goals, past military victories or
electoral mandates. As such, the kings of Jordan could feel free to introduce democratic
reforms because they held themselves above the power of the legislature. King Hussein,
election results in choosing either prime minister or cabinet.”70 Because “few are willing
to imagine Jordan without its monarchy,” Hussein has greater liberty to ignore popular
opinion. On the other hand, Herb argues that Jordan’s monarchical structure does not
monopolize the country’s political elite in a dynasty, which leaves the monarchy much
69
Ibid., 104.
70
Rex Brynen, “The Politics of Monarchical Liberalism: Jordan,” in Political
Liberalization and Democratization in the Arab World: Volume 2, Comparative
Experiences (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998), 77.
24
more vulnerable to elite divisions and a pact between soft-liners and opposition
reformers.71
Beyond simple loyalty to the regime, however, Jordanian strength rests on the
military. Here, unlike the Egyptian military, the Hashemites have practiced extensive
patrimonialism. Bellin notes that in Jordan, “the king regularly appoints his male relatives
to key military posts to guarantee against military rebellion.” It is notable that in doing
this the military has remained somewhat professional and under the control of the state,
where in many Arab countries “the military has been a key route to personal
enrichment.”72
Beyond appointing a few relatives to key positions in the military, King Abdullah
also relies heavily on support from Bedouin tribesmen and East Bankers. Those two
groups are privileged in the military, while Palestinians cannot rise above the rank of
major or lieutenant colonel.73 The loyalty of East Bank Jordanians and Bedouin to the
monarchy has let Hussein and Abdullah “adopt, at times, a highly repressive policy
toward many of its citizens,” namely the Palestinians.74 By promoting the East Bankers
on a tribal basis, the Jordanian kings have given them a stake in regime survival:
“Regime change would jeopardize the predominance of favored tribal elites in the
Jordanian” military.75 This patrimonial structure makes the military a strength for the
Jordanian regime in its struggles to maintain power. East Banker support for the
monarchy extends beyond the military; Jordanian electoral districts are heavily
gerrymandered to maximize East Bank representation and keep the parliament from
71
Herb, 231.
72
Bellin, 33-34.
73
Ibid., 33.
74
Herb, 231.
75
Bellin, 34.
25
Palestinian control.76 The collapse of the monarchy could lead to a bloody civil war
between Jordan’s two major factions, giving the favored East Bankers additional
incentives to support the regime. However, Herb argues that support for the monarchy is
only lightly embedded in the Jordanian society and that Abdullah “would do well to
from Jordan’s rulers? Scholarship on the matter is pessimistic. Jordanian civil society
“showed little independence or politicization”78 before 1989 and even today is more “an
newspapers are still largely controlled by the government, and independent papers face
substantial legal and financial obstacles. Civil society pressure groups are either focused
on “sectional issues rather than a broader political agenda” or have been co-opted by a
Wiktorowicz argues that this is due to a strong state effort to observe all activities by civil
society groups, ensuring that only approved activities occur: “The bureaucracy is used to
penetrate society and enhance social control. In this manner, public administration can be
used as an instrument of state power vis-à-vis civil society.”81 Political parties are also
largely weak, with more than half of the Jordanian parliament composed of independent
76
Herb, 227-229.
77
Ibid., 233.
78
Brynen, 84.
79
Quintan Wiktorowicz, “Civil Society as Social Control: State Power in Jordan,”
Comparative Politics 33 (2000), 43.
80
Brynen, 84-85.
81
Wiktorowicz, 49.
26
candidates.82
Potential challenges also come from Islamist groups and Palestinians. The Islamic
Action Front (IAF), related to the Muslim Brotherhood, has been “in many ways Jordan’s
only truly successful political party.” The IAF contains both radical and moderate wings
with differing levels of support for democracy, but at the present time, “it is clear that the
‘moderate’ wing of the IAF currently occupies a dominant position in its leadership, and
that the IAF has been a full, active and often constructive participant in political life in
struggled with—and been repressed by—the Jordanian state since 1948. However,
Palestinian influence is limited both by official discrimination (discussed above) but also
scale political representation in Jordan … damage the case for self-determination in the
West Bank and Gaza.”84 The goals of the Jordanian Palestinians are of course heavily
determined by the contours of the Arab-Israeli peace process, but for the meantime the
Palestinians may challenge the state but seem unlikely to threaten the regime.
A. Overview: Kuwait has been under the control of the al-Sabah family to varying
degrees since the 18th century. Moreover, the al-Sabah are notable for pioneering a
remarkably resilient form of government, the dynastic monarchy. Following several feuds
within the ruling family in the early 20th century, the emir Ahmad brought his whole
family into the government, finding “ a formula for sharing power … that excluded
82
Brynen, 85.
83
Ibid., 85-86.
84
Ibid., 90.
27
others from control of the newly enlarged Kuwaiti state.”85 Dynastic monarchy will be
Also of great importance when discussing the democratic prospects for Kuwait is
its long parliamentary tradition. A National Assembly was first established in 1963 and
featured, from the start, a vocal opposition. Constant struggles between the parliament
and the al-Sabah for influence have led to the parliament being suspended several times,
often for years, but on a whole parliamentarism “has led to a gradual weakening of the
increasing influence of parliament has not proven incompatible with family rule.”86
society. Like many other Gulf states, Kuwait has restrictive citizenship policies and a
large body of exploited migrant workers. Non-citizens make up about 60 percent of the
population and more than 80 percent of the work force. There is a sharp division in
wealth between the citizens and the migrants, with almost all Kuwaitis enjoying high
income, education and health care. Kuwait specialist Jill Crystal argues that “ironically,
the presence of so many foreigners and the Kuwaitis’ vague fear of social and cultural
inundation by these foreigners have been important factors in consolidating the strong
sense of identity among the Kuwaitis.”87 Where the society is divided, it is between “the
rich and the not-so-rich,” between descendants of different tribes, or between the majority
B. Modernization: Being much richer and more developed than Egypt and Jordan
85
Herb, 75.
86
Ibid., 82.
87
Jill Crystal, Kuwait: The Transformation of an Oil State (Boulder: Westview Press,
1992), 3.
28
leads modernization theory to be more bullish on Kuwait’s chances of democratization.
The World Values Survey sampled Kuwait for the first time in the unreleased 2005
survey, and so has not yet disclosed the small nation’s actual rankings. However,
Inglehart and Welzel did use their model to predict Kuwait’s 2005 location: -0.70 on the
Welzel also used their model to make predictions about the 2000 survey; there it had an
average prediction error ranging from .13 in Turkey through .28 in Egypt to .45 in
Jordan. With Arab countries the model tended to underestimate traditional and survival
values. Thus, one can expect Kuwait’s actual scores to be slightly lower than predicted,
but they are still notably higher than the results for Egypt and Jordan.88 As they
explained, “our model predicts that Kuwait, because of its high economic level, will show
more-secular values than most Islamic societies.”89 The writers did not release a
percentage of Kuwaitis who they predicted would emphasize self-expression values, but
given higher levels of self-expression values than Egypt it does not seem unreasonable to
think that the proportion of citizens emphasizing self-expression values is no lower than
not Inglehart would predict future democratization. If so, it is likely to be slow and
incremental.
Curiously, Fattah, who was more optimistic than Inglehart about Egypt and
Jordan, is more pessimistic about Kuwait. He finds that 17 percent of literate Kuwaitis
(who are a close stand-in for the Kuwaiti citizen population as a whole) are traditionalists
88
Inglehart and Welzel, Internet Appendix.
89
Ibid., 89.
29
and 11 percent statists. Compared to Jordan and Egypt Kuwait has higher levels of
secular pluralists and lower levels of modernist Islamists, but about the same “democratic
is worth noting that, as Inglehart and Welzel predicted, Kuwait does appear to be more
Fattah also finds that Kuwaitis express lower support for both democratic
institutions and democratic norms than Egyptians or Jordanians. Their low support for
rights, with “45 percent of respondents refusing to support women’s rights to participate
in politics at all.”91 The low support for democratic institutions is more interesting. On the
one hand, when asked whether “Muslim countries should have democratic rulers instead
of the current political rulers,” 88 percent of Kuwaitis picked democracy, with only four
percent choosing the incumbents—more than 10 points more support for democratic
rulers than Muslims in any other country and around forty points higher than the views of
Muslims living in more democratic countries like Turkey, India and Iran.92 On the other
hand, Kuwaitis are more ambiguous when it comes to potential conflicts between Islam
“democratic institutions and procedures are against sharia” and whether “public elections
of rulers will lead to taboos.” On this question, Kuwaitis, despite being more secular than
other countries, were also warier about whether democracy might be un-Islamic.93
90
Fattah, 29.
91
Ibid., 100.
92
Ibid., 66, 156.
93
Ibid., 172.
30
Taken as a whole, Inglehart and Fattah’s survey data suggests a polarized Kuwait
between highly traditional Muslims and modernist and secular Muslims that could
Inglehart and Fattah that Kuwaitis are supportive of their current system but not too eager
to radically reform it. A May 6, 2008 New York Times article notes that “it is unlikely that
many Kuwaitis would be willing to trade their political rights and freedoms for more
economic opportunity. But the notion that democracy is somehow holding Kuwait back is
common.”94 The political culture data would suggest caution in making bold predictions
C. Transition studies: Kuwaitis on average seem content with their current semi-
democratic state. But political struggles between forces in the Kuwaiti regime and the
opposition could transform the system quickly and in ways that Kuwaiti political players
might not expect. A brief examination of regime and opposition forces is necessary to
position. Herb’s research found that Kuwait’s dynastic monarchy has successfully
handled power struggles and infighting that could have torn apart weaker regimes, all
while maintaining a common front against outside enemies. Though the al-Sabah tolerate
a parliament, it does not “tolerate the interference of outsiders in their internal disputes,
for it is a recognized rule … that the family, alone, sets dynastic policy.”95 The most
striking example of this dynamic at play was in 1986, when the emir suspended the
94
Robert F. Worth, “In Democracy Kuwait Trusts, but Not Much,” The New York Times,
6 May 2008. Accessed at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/world/middleeast/06kuwait.html?hp
95
Herb, 82.
31
parliament after it took a side in a family dispute. He dissolved the parliament “despite
the fact that it was his own brother … who benefited from the attacks within the assembly
on their cousin.”96 These closed ranks around the principle of dynastic monarchy means
that the al-Sabah can tolerate policy disputes amongst themselves without putting the
regime at risk. Even though there is “an authoritarian wing of the royal family that has
long wanted to curtail Parliament’s powers” and a liberal wing that supports the
parliament,97 this does not appear to translate into a typical soft-liner/hard-liner split that
the opposition could exploit: “efforts by opposition politicians to curb the powers of the
Al Sabah by exploiting conflicts within the family would lead not to a weakening of the
The regime has also depended on support from the Bedouin, who are seen as
“more pliant and less interested in political reform.”99 However, younger Bedouins have
been politically less loyal than their fathers, and scholars have noted that “the tribal
Even though the Kuwaiti regime seems strong enough to be able to deny any
undesirable democratic reforms, that does not mean that the Kuwaiti opposition has no
One opposition group that does not appear likely to play any particular role is the
96
Ibid., 82-83.
97
Worth.
98
Herb, 83.
99
Worth.
100
Jill Crystal and Abdallah al-Shayeji, “The Pro-Democratic Agenda in Kuwait:
Structures and Context,” in Political Liberalization and Democratization in the Arab
World: Volume 2, Comparative Experiences (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998),
119.
32
business elite. Crystal’s research indicates that in Kuwait, merchants, who “historically
pressed [their] claims most effectively on the state,” have withdrawn from politics
“because of a tacit deal between the rulers and the trading families, a trade of wealth for
formal power. In effect, the merchants renounced their historical claim to participate in
decision making. In exchange, the [emirs] guaranteed them a large share of the oil
revenues.”101
The effective opposition includes both Islamist and pluralist elements. At times
these groups work together in favor of expanded democracy and reduced corruption. On
other issues, most notably the enfranchisement of women, liberals and Islamists split.
Usually when the regime moves to restrict parliamentary power or dissolves it altogether,
the opposition unites in favor of democracy, such as during Kuwait’s moment of greatest
When, on the other hand, basic democratic demands are met, the opposition can
split based on particular policy predilections. Of the major parties in parliament, only
one, the populist Popular Bloc “is primarily concerned with challenging the ruling family,
whereas the liberals and Islamists display more desire to do combat with each other than
101
Jill Crystal, “Coalitions in Oil Monarchies: Kuwait and Qatar,” Comparative Politics
21 (1989), 427.
102
Crystal and al-Shayeji, 105-106.
33
with the monarchy.”103 This means that the regime can usually co-opt one group or the
or friends” that have become greatly expanded and politicized—picture groups of men
gathering and talking late into the night about politics. Some diwaniyyas are full-scale
political meetings with thousands of attendees. Regardless of the size, Kuwaitis of all
stripes defend this institution and protested “attempts to close down the politicized
institutions are elected cooperative societies and mosques, both of which have strong
public support and are difficult to repress. Jill Crystal and Abdallah al-Shayeji conclude
that “these institutions provide some autonomy for social groups vis-à-vis the state.”104 As
a result, the opposition can effectively organize and even demonstrate publicly and
successfully against the regime, such as in recent years when public protests forced the
emir to accept a popular electoral reform package and to back down from the attempt to
ready forum for regime criticism, so long as the opposition is wise enough not to tread on
the taboo areas covered by dynastic privilege. However, the parliament, by granting the
demands that unify the opposition, serves to divide them on other issues, allowing the
34
When the regime tries to scale back democracy, this opposition snaps into action and
mobilizes to defend their privilege. Thus, it seems likely that the opposition will provide
at most a low-intensity demand for expanded democracy, and that future democratization
will depend on the regime and opposition coming to consensus rather than making radical
demands.
VII. Conclusions
Arab democratization has been at the forefront of American foreign policy since
September 11, 2001. Our most notable efforts to promote democracy, however, have at
best been horribly expensive and bloody victories and at worst disasters. Does this mean
that democracy in the Arab world is impossible, or at least a long way off? Or, on the
other hand, do elections in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon
mean that a wave of democracy is already spreading across the Middle East?
As is often the case, the answer is more nuanced. In Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait,
demands for expanded democracy on the part of opposition forces have been met with
varying degrees of resistance from regimes. Modernization theory and the political
culture approach indicate that the populations of all three countries are not so
democratization is likely to come from the bottom up, with a broad segment of the
population emphasizing pro-democratic values. Jordan has much more lukewarm support
for democracy, largely due to intolerant views towards women and religious minorities.
Political culture approaches indicate which countries might demand and support
35
transition might begin and what form that transition might take. In Egypt, the regime’s
support depends on the military, which is presently loyal but is independent enough to
possibly defect. The opposition is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, which looks
like the most potent regime challenger; of more interest is where or not the Brotherhood
would pursue democratic policies if it actually gained power. Within the next decade or
so (possibly following the death of Mubarak, Egypt’s long-time president), Egypt should
undergo some sort of transition, though not necessarily to democracy. Jordan has a weak
but surprisingly resilient regime whose hold on power is strengthened by the weakness
(due to regime efforts) of Jordanian civil society and opposition. Any liberalization will
require regime leadership. Kuwait, perhaps the most intriguing case, has a very resilient
regime but also a very vocal opposition. It offers perhaps the best option for a gradualist
democratization fueled by consensus and pacts between a moderate regime and the
opposition. Kuwait is likely to move, slowly but surely, in the direction of a government
36