October 12, 2009 |  3 comments |  Print this Article  Your Opinion  

Building Bridges, Not Walls Between the West and MENA

Alex Glennie: A more even-handed approach to promoting political reform in the Middle East and North Africa on the part of western policymakers is both a moral necessity and a strategic imperative. As part of this, dialogue with non-violent Islamist parties and movements, alongside other opposition groups in the region, must be prioritised.

Since the events of 11 September 2001, there has been an explosion of interest in the many manifestations of political Islam in the Middle East and North Africa. Until fairly recently, analysts have understandably focused on those actors that operate at the violent end of the Islamist spectrum, including Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, some of the sectarian parties in Iraq and to a certain extent, political groups with armed wings like Hamas in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Hezbollah in Lebanon. But this has obscured the fact that across the Middle East/North Africa (MENA) region, contemporary politics is also being driven and shaped by a more diverse collection of ‘mainstream’ Islamist movements. Many of these have publicly eschewed the use of violence to help realise their objectives at the national level by engaging in the legal political processes of their countries, even where they are discriminated against or repressed.

These non-violent Islamist movements or parties frequently represent the best organised and most popular element of the opposition to the existing regimes in each country. As such, western policymakers have started to question whether there is a constructive role that they might play in democracy promotion in the region. But this debate appears to have stalled on the issue of whether it would be appropriate to engage with these groups on a more systematic and formal basis, rather than on the practicalities of actually doing so. This attitude is partly linked to a justifiable unwillingness to legitimise groups that might hold anti-democratic views on women’s rights, political pluralism and a range of other issues. It also reflects pragmatic considerations about the strategic interests of western powers in the MENA region that are perceived to be threatened by the rising popularity and influence of Islamists. For their part, Islamist parties and movements have shown a clear reluctance to forge closer ties with those western powers whose policies in the region they strongly oppose, not least for fear of how the repressive regimes they operate within might react. However, the tendency of both sides to view engagement as a zero sum ‘all or nothing’ game has been unhelpful, and needs to change if a more constructive dialogue around reform in the Middle East and North Africa is to emerge.

Western policymakers should therefore be more proactive in creating channels for serious and sustained dialogue with non-violent Islamist parties and movements across the MENA region. Without giving Islamists preferential treatment, there is scope for more consistently involving them in debate about broader ties between Europe, the US and the MENA region alongside other non-governmental actors, including the region’s secular opposition politicians. Critically, this should engage with the political as well as the religious values of Islamist parties and movements. A solid basis for engagement cannot be built without some attempt to find common political ground, and so western policymakers should move away from their focus on ‘testing’ the democratic credentials of Islamist movements, and concentrate instead on discussion of the range of political, economic and social issues that concern these groups, many of which are shared by their western counterparts.

Any change in approach towards engaging in dialogue with mainstream Islamists should be set within a new strategy towards relations with leaders in the MENA region as a whole. Specifically, western governments need to be more even-handed in condemning all human rights abuses in the Middle East and North Africa, including those perpetrated against Islamists by the region’s authoritarian regimes. A better balance must also be struck between maintaining cooperative relationships with governing regimes around questions of international security and economic development, while also pressing them to move faster towards political reform pledges that they have already made.

Real democratisation, on a scale that will lead to significant change in the regional political status quo, will be a messy business. Islamist parties and movements may well be the beneficiary of any openings in restrictive political structures, which will undoubtedly pose uncomfortable dilemmas for western governments. It would be naïve to suggest that agreement with mainstream Islamist movements in the MENA region on key political issues is within easy reach. But an approach that seeks to ignore these political currents is no longer morally or strategically defensible. Decades of paying lip service to the idea of political freedoms while simultaneously propping up authoritarian leaders who lack democratic legitimacy has helped to create an environment that is not conducive to stability or development, yet both are urgently needed in order for western powers to protect their considerable interests in the region. A reorientation of policy along these lines is also urgently required if western powers hope to improve their tarnished image across the Middle East and North Africa, and become more credible advocates of political reform.

Alex Glennie is a Researcher at the Institute for Public Policy Research in London, and the author of Building Bridges. Not Walls: Engaging with political Islamists in the Middle East and North Africa which can be downloaded here.

  • 13
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
Tags: | MENA | human rights |
 
Comments
Jakob  Schirmer

October 13, 2009

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I agree on this suggested approach and shortly would like to mention another perspective: The EU as a bridgehead to MENA needs a conscious approach towards the (political) Islam. Conscoius means a real dispute and understanding in the civil society. Unless the EU is able to integrate the Islam (i.e. also Turkey) there is no even-handed political approach to islamic states as MENA.
 
Dragoslav  Rubez

October 15, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?

Very actual and why not to say exceptional topic really, particularly for pointing out some latest worlds relation of todays global political actors and I agree indeed with topics goal tracking. For that please allow me a few notices.
In modern political system (west ?) there is broad separation of politics with religion, even tough there are various exceptions also and all it’s very normal, European examples for that are demochristian parties and unionist movements, some of conservatives parties, than various sorts of national parties tightly close to religion (state), not to mention other parts of the world, but the MENA region ( the term that’s liked me really), seems very particular and so cloistered to a parameter of almost strong suspicion from the world rest. Who knows why it so, but it could be caused by well-known facts of magnificent faith in God notion that’s often mingled by transcendental as well as veritable perception that pervades majority of the MENA’s people and nations so giving mixing character traits in power’s policies with religion (state) by almost all countries in the region. Historically seeing it’s a nothing new and humans already faced various similar contexts of theirs organizational societal stratums, but what particularly set off this aspect (religion side) of the main region trait is an obvious discrepancy between strict exclusionary notions of religion’s scholarly presentation to outer world and simultaneously nothing taking strictly in return while asking constantly for democratic applying of principles and issues that are perceived as nonreligious. We will see in going on the topic, is that approach effectuate or not, but the fact is that all the world today facing itself for this extraordinary time we all live at the very beginning of 21 century. It seems as obvious that our living existence is not possible and feasible in future without broadest frame of changes, particularly of political changes in theirs essence because impact so much entire world. Aiming this, we should make clear the human tolerance is to be put on pedestal as a precondition for any political development. Today, you can see everyday live broadcast and tough discussions on many topics like about Abrahams and Christs scholarly mounting of perceptible directions accounting for some possible human prospects all in the context of eternal time order, than some impossible Buddha’s followers overrunnings which opposed each others in the same context also, while some aspects of Islam encompassing our common future by appealing all people to reassess theirs proceeding and so coming to rooted values.
That is why I agree with topics proposals of respectable Ms. Glennie and also with her notes that it not easy to be reached. On the other side this topic is too demanding indeed and I kindly suggest to Ms. Glennie for subdivision because any proper detailing of tough political implications takes more time and space.
Only to conclude that pointing to some possible solution through developing official dialog with Islamist party on the range of political, economic and social issues which are of common human concern by all means, could be only usuful and productive, really. These channels would set good starting position for various perspectives not only in MENA region but world widely. The creativity frustrates exclusivity as a well known saying.
Tags: | Near |
 
Member deleted

October 31, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
One does agree with Alex over the engagement with those Islamist movements that eschew violence and crime. Their socialization entails them to certain view-points that may seem intolerant of democracy as commonly understood. It is useful to find viewpoints of peace - even if within strictly religious settings. But if Israel with its overt religious orientation can be engaged as a partner by many "western" states, it does raise a question and an important point over why can not those states be constructively engaged.

Having said that, it also becomes useful to note that in any exercise of engagements, it is imperative that those who are being engaged also become aware of particular rights and privileges that comes with difference. The difference between states and tehir socializations. Religious fanaticism or intolerance is not a welcome phenomenon in any democratic state. Yet, the religious orientation showed by many Muslim migrants who are keen to retain their religious identities in democratic states (Sweden being merely one example of a liberal society that faces problems with religious socilaizations) is an important pointer towards the expectations the MENA states may have when dealing with dmocracies.

Aspirations for the recognition of their differences (religion as a factor in world view) with states and societies that have different socializations is as imperative as it is important for many "western" states to constructively engage groups and political parties that eschew violence. That eschewance is an important first step even as one recognizes that religious nationalism and even internationalism (most religious orientations look at a pan-national presence) is an emergent rival global order that does not, however, better democracy in any sense.

Within the realm of competing ideologies or belief-systems - the right of the individual to decide that and be able to decide that (minus the war of attrition and acceptance as resignation which by itself is a major violence even if carried out indirectly) remains paramount. Israel as a state does not display that ambition of any Jewish dominance of the world or is unable to. Either way, religious nationalism is an emerging rival order to secular democracy with the attendant problem of an internationalism that is exclusive. By the very logic of their aspirations.
 

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org