To many seasoned observers, U.S. plans in Iraq seem unrealistic,
since democratic values are not deeply rooted in
the region. Feudal rulers remain in power, notably on the
Arabian peninsula. The kings of Saudi Arabia, for example,
continue to rule by traditional precepts and, citing
the distinctive character of Muslim political institutions,
have been reluctant to establish representative political
institutions. As a general rule, these rulers maintain and
even enforce the strict observance of traditional customs.
Religious police in Saudi Arabia are responsible for enforcing
the Muslim dress code, maintaining the prohibition
against alcohol, and making sure offices close during
the time for prayer.
In other societies, traditional authority has been replaced
by charismatic one-party rule or military dictatorships.
Nasser’s regime in Egypt is a good example of a
single-party state where the leader won political power by
the force of his presence or personality. The Ayatollah
Khomeini in Iran, Muammar Qadhafi in Libya, and Saddam
Hussein in Iraq are other examples. Although their
personal characteristics and images differ, all have sought
to take advantage of their popular appeal.
In other instances, charismatic rule has given way to
modernizing bureaucratic regimes. Examples include the
governments of Syria, Yemen, Turkey, and Egypt since
Nasser, where Anwar al-Sadat and his successor, Hosni
Mubarak, have avoided dramatic personal appeal in favor
of a regime focused on performance. Sometimes the authoritarian
character of the regimes has been modified by
some democratic tendencies, especially in Turkey, where
free elections and the sharing of power have become
more prevalent in recent years. A few Arab nations, such
as Bahrain, Kuwait, and Jordan, have even engaged in
limited forms of democratic experimentation.
In Syria, the death of longtime President Hafez al-
Assad in 2000 led to a referendum that elevated his son
Bashar al-Assad to the office. The new president indicated
that he would not seek to continue the personality
cult that had arisen during the reign of his father but
warned that he would not encourage political reforms
that might threaten the domination of the country’s oneparty
political system. Noting that he would tolerate only
“positive criticism” of government policies, he declared
that “we have to have our own democracy to match our
history and culture, arising from the needs of our people
and our reality.”2
Only in Israel are democratic institutions firmly established.
The Israeli system suffers from the proliferation of
minor parties, some of which are able to dictate policy because
their support is essential to keeping a government
in power. In recent years, divisions between religious conservatives
and secular elements within the Jewish community
have become increasingly sharp, resulting in bitter
disagreements over social policy and the negotiating
process with the Palestinians. Nevertheless, the government
generally reflects the popular will, and power is
transferred by peaceful and constitutional means.
World History
