Hard lessons in liberty for the Middle East
With pro-democracy struggles in trouble in Iran and in the Arab Spring, opposition figures now realize that unity against tyranny is easier than unity in favor of democracy. Many see the need for a change.
For three years, the world has watched the people of the Middle East rise up against dictators. First came Iran in 2009 and then the Arab Spring in 2011. Almost all of the revolts – either active ones as in Syria or successful ones as in Egypt – have since ended, stalled, or hit rough spots.Skip to next paragraph
Gallery Monitor Political Cartoons
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
One reason is that those who ignited the protests have since learned it is far easier to unite against tyranny than unite in favor of democratic values, such as respect for the opinions of others. Opposition leaders have too often split over egos, the role of Islam, the use of violence, or differing views of what democracy means.
Now, however, there are signs that many who first sought freedom have learned an expensive lesson from their own experience and from history in what can happen during a revolution. Even the American Colonists in 1776 were more united against King George III than united for democracy.
Ultimately, an affirmative identity for these movements based on democratic principles will be far more lasting for the Middle East than a negative identity, or what a group opposes. Positive ideals help form bonds across faiths, ethnicities, and classes. And only when Arabs and Iranians see that pro-democracy leaders respect their views might they grant authority to them.
One example of a possible shift toward affirmative unity is a document signed by more than 100 Iranian intellectuals who live outside Iran. Called “Charter 91,” the document rejects violence and embraces basic rights and a new civic culture for Iran. Their statement of principles is based on similar “charters” by dissidents in Soviet-era Czechoslovakia and today’s China.
In Syria, new attempts are being made to unite the rebels fighting the Assad regime. The reasons have become all too clear as the country descends into more violence.
For one, the West and other Arab states have been reluctant to provide much assistance with so much disunity among the opposition. Radical jihadist groups are filling a vacuum of leadership and may be taking an upper hand in the civil war. And President Bashar al-Assad has begun to paint the protests as simply Sunnis against Shiites. His tactic plays to fears of sectarian strife rather than hopes for freedom.