[Big A]

http://hnn.us/articles/18242.html

Why Are Liberals So Weak In Middle East?

By Judith Apter Klinghoffer



From news article:

Ms. Klinghoffer is senior associate scholar at the Political Science department at Rutgers University, Camden, and the author of Vietnam, Jews and the Middle East. She is also an HNN blogger.

During a talk he gave at FPRI introducing his new book The Long War for Freedom , Barry Rubin estimated the percentage of democratic liberals in the region at 5% and Islamists at 25%. One may quibble about the exact percentage but it is difficult to ignore the obvious weakness of the reformist forces in the Middle East. The more consequential question is, why? The rote answer is because the region does not have a large enough middle class or its inhabitants are not sophisticated enough to insist on a voice in the running of their own governments. The failure of the genocidal Sunni insurgency in Iraq to prevent millions of Iraqis from casting their votes, demands an alternative explanation. It may be found in a significant part, in the manner so called “moderate” autocrats block any movement towards democracy not only in their own country but across the region. Hosni Mubarak is an excellent case in point because as the largest Arab state, Egypt is not only the region’s natural leader but it is determined to remain so. Moreover, its Islamist movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, is the place where Ayman al Zawahiri, of Al Qaeda fame, got his start. Unfortunately, recent events leave no doubt that it is not a Middle East spring but a reconstituted “Holy Alliance,” that the aging Egyptian autocrat is determined to lead and that he considers Islamists' strength and democratic liberals' weakness essential to his success.

In 1981 Hosni Mubarak was a young vice president who came to power because Anwar Sadat was assassinated by Islamists opposed to his peace with Israel. Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by men opposed to his war against the Confederacy. Charles DeGaulle barely escaped an assassination attempt by those opposed to his giving up Algeria. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by an opponent of the peace process. In the democracies, the assassinations turned the murdered leader into a martyr and discredited the ideological supporters of the murderers. Last week, Israel commemorated the anniversary of Rabin's assassination. "Thousands Mourn Rabin, 10 Years Later," read the headline. Everybody who was anybody in Israel, and a large number of dignitaries from around the world, gathered to praise the fallen hero united in their determination to delegitimize the assassination and to reaffirm his commitment to peace. No similar commemorations took place in Egypt at the 20th anniversary of Sadat’s assassination. “Egypt quietly marks Sadat's assassination, reported CBC. There were no public ceremonies, no foreign dignitaries. Only a speech by Mubarak praising not his peace with Israel but his “victory” in the 1973 War against Israel. In other words, Mubarak used the anniversary not to affirm Sadat’s peace with Israel but to distance himself from that peace. He did not do so because Sadat’s peace was unpopular with the people. It was not. Indeed, Egyptians were flocking to see the new biopic on his life. Mubarak did it to carry favor with the elite. His spokesman, Tahseen Basheer, said: "I have always believed that the overwhelming majority of Egyptians supported Sadat for making peace, even if they do not particularly like the way the Israelis behave. The opposition comes from the political and cultural elite, who never forgave him for going to Jerusalem to address the Knesset." There is evidence to back this.