Elections that shape identity, not just shift power

Civic unity keeps rising in two Arab democracies, Iraq and Tunisia, that only recently were riven by religious divides. Just look at Tunisia’s presidential election with 26 candidates.

Reuters
People watch a televised debate between presidential candidates at a cafe in central Tunis, Tunisia, Sept. 7.

For the second time since its revolution in the 2011 Arab Spring, Tunisia will elect a new president Sunday. In the Arab world, which is mostly autocratic or chaotic, that alone is quite a feat. Tunisia’s success is matched only by Iraq’s progress in democracy since 2003.

Yet what stands out in both countries is a parallel rise in national identity. Elections have led people to unite around a shared stake in deciding their civic interests in a civil way rather than fighting over differences within Islam or the role of Islam in governance. Given an opportunity to vote for leaders making pledges on issues from security to corruption, voters take on a secular, patriotic solidarity, polls show.

Tunisia’s opportunity to further shape its identity is reflected in the number of presidential candidates: 26. The diversity on the list – populist TV tycoon, feminist, Islamist, technocrat, free-market advocate, leftist, and so on – gives voters ample freedom to choose the country’s future. In addition, the candidates held three debates, an unheard-of public event in the Arab world.

In the 2014 legislative elections, political battle lines were largely between supporters of secular rule and the Islamist party of Ennahda. Since then Ennahda has rebranded itself as a “Muslim democratic party.” One reason is that Tunisians care more about jobs and services than a government imposing Islam on a society with wide social divisions.

In Iraq, too, since the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and the overthrow of an Islamic State enclave in 2016, the country has tried to move away from sectarian battles. In an election last year, which resulted in the fourth successive peaceful transfer of power, issues of everyday governance were more important than religion divides.

Remarkably, polls show the minority Sunnis have more trust in a largely Shiite-led government than do Shiites. The percentage of Sunnis who identify first as “Iraqi” keeps rising. And a large majority of both Sunni and Shiites say they feel safe in their neighborhoods and that it is better to separate religion from politics, according to polling by the Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies.

People in both Tunisia and Iraq still wear many “hats” – Muslim, Arab, tribal, regional, etc. Yet by uniting around a democratic process to solve problems together, they create a bond that defines a wider identity, one based on civic ideals. As messy as their democracy may be, they are trying to see themselves in the greater good.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.