The follows are excerpts from articles which appeared in the
Egyptian English weekly, Al-Ahram Weekly 18-24 Dec.Al-Ahram On Arab Democracy, Iraq and More

The follows are excerpts from articles which appeared in the
Egyptian English weekly, Al-Ahram Weekly 18-24 Dec. '97

+++Democracy In The Arab World
"Worse than a parody" by Salama A. Salama

The fact that general elections were held recently in Algeria,
Morocco and previously in Yemen and Jordan, may tempt some to
believe that Arab countries have entered the age of democracy and
freedom. Arab political regimes now seem to draw their legitimacy
from liberal democratic practice, rooted in such institutions as
free elections, the rule of law, the separation of powers, and
protection of civil freedoms (including freedom of speech and
expression), all of which distinguish a democratic pluralist system
from the totalitarian regimes which dominated many parts of the
Arab world, eastern Europe and Latin America in the sixties.

In response to some domestic pressure and many foreign policy
considerations, Arab regimes have sought to dress in democratic
garb. They must face a world in which democracy is a basic
criterion for admission to the international community. This is why
various elections have recently been held in different Arab
countries, which have never recognized democracy as a legitimate
means for inducing change or for decision-making at the grassroots
level. But several Arab regimes follow the policy that holding
elections and obtaining participation -- even nominally -- of a few
political parties entitles the regime to raise the banner of
democracy and call itself democratic.

Today, no one is deceived by these claims. Skepticism is generated
by the procedure of elections, but especially by their outcome.

No recent elections in the Arab world have failed to witness
charges of corruption or tampering with the ballot boxes, all
vehemently denied. The ruling party, of course, aims for the usual
99 percent landslide. No elections held in any Arab country have
been void of violence, accusations and chaotic procedures. The
elections have left ruling parties in place and, therefore, have
failed to change policies and programmes. Polarization and
extremism have increased, the margin of freedom diminished, and the
number of people distrustful of democracy within the ranks of the
government skyrocketed.

In the countries which have relatively unblemished track records,
the legislative authority was overridden when decisive issues were
on the table. Freedoms of speech and of the press were restricted,
and the margin of civil rights and mobility for the political
opposition limited. It is often hard to tell the difference
between regimes which claim to act in the name of democracy, and
those which do not even pretend to do so.

Every time elections are held in the Arab world, one wonders what
cause could possibly be served by all the money which governments
pour into election campaigns, the mobilisation of security forces,
election committees, banners, posters and election rallies. What
about the astronomical sums spent to win supporters and defeat
rivals, money which candidates must recover by any means once they
are in office?

Political scientists assert that the damage inflicted by such
elections far exceeds their advantages. Elections reflect a false
democracy, which only leads to further erosion of freedoms,
nurtures terrorism, accentuates ethnic and factional fault lines,
and can easily spark civil war.

The age of democracy is said to be upon us. But a democracy
established in an alien environment, in the absence of the
conditions for its development, actually undermines principles of
democracy, erodes freedoms, and compromises pluralism. Arab-style
elections reflect negatively on the entire situation in Arab
countries, both domestically and externally: precisely the
situation we are in today.

+++"Iraq's not-so-lonely fate" by Hassan Nafaa, Professor of
Political Science at Cairo University

The crisis between the United States and Iraq could well be the
last in a series that has lasted over seven years. The impact of
the current crisis could therefore determine the future of Iraq, if
not the future of the region as a whole.

...U.S. insistence that the presidential palaces be open to random
inspection by the U.N. team, combined with U.S. reluctance to
demobilise forces in the Gulf, however, strongly indicate that all
options, including military action, are still open.

...From the political and ethical standpoints, Iraq is fully
justified in its demands, although from the strictly formal and
legal standpoints, these demands may be difficult to defend. Iraq
requested the withdrawal of the Americans from the UN team on the
grounds that their presence compromises the team's neutrality,
impairing its scientific and technological mission and reducing it
to a political committee. The unjustified extention of the team's
work under various pretexts is attributed to both the domination
of American inspectors and US hegemony in the new world order.

...American intransigence seems unjustified, is legally unfounded
and, more seriously, lends considerable credibility to Iraqi
claims. Even if the Iraqis are not completely innocent of US
accusations that they are obstructing the work of the inspection
team, Iraq's political motives seem largely justified on both
political and ethical levels.

...With the exception of Kuwait, the entire Arab region, from the
Atlantic to the Arabian Gulf, was overwhelmed by a tide of
certainty that US policy toward Iraq is motivated by considerations
which only serve Israeli interests and buttress Israel's domination
of the region, to the direct detriment of the Arab peoples and
regimes. Arab popular sentiment was sufficiently vociferous that
regimes generally friendly to the US (Saudi Arabia, for instance)
were forced to declare their opposition to any initiative involving
the use of force.

...If the US concedes, it will lose on all other fronts in the
region. This is the reason for the US's insistence on the
inspection of the presidential palaces. If the hero of "mother of
all battles" accepts this demand, he will have accepted not only
suffering for his people, but also shame and dishonor. Since US
insolence is limitless, the next request may well be in the
inspection of the presidential bedroom, military uniform, or
undergarments. If Saddam rejects US demands, he may well have to
face the military troops currently on maximum alert.

...Meanwhile, the decision to oust the regime in Baghdad forcibly
could have long-term repercussions with unpredictable implications
for the security of the region. The absence of a strong central
government in Baghdad at this point could lead to the physical and
legal fragmentation of Iraq. Even if this does not happen
immediately, the chaos that will prevail after the collapse of the
regime will encourage incursions from numerous regional forces,
such as Iran, Turkey and possibly Syria and Israel -- precisely
what the US, Gulf States and possibly the entire international
community have been trying to avert. The US, however, overrun by
deep-rooted pro-Israeli elements, may conclude that this chaos may
be necessary to distract the Arab world from events on Palestinian
territory, the Judaisation of which is unprecedented since the
beginning of the century.

The US and Israel may believe that they will control the outcome of
the crisis. Since the beginning of the game, e ball has been in
the Arab court, Giving a US inspection team (albeit one in UN
clothes) access to the bedrooms of an Arab president is an insult
to all Arab leaders. Unilateral US control of the crisis will be
disastrous for all the Arabs. Can the Arabs forget Saddam Hussein
for a moment, and think instead of Iraq and the dark future which
awaits all of us if we continue to turn the other cheek?

...After seven years of close examination of every minute detail of
life in Iraq, the US claims that Iraq is still hiding chemical
weapons. The US has come to regard the Iraqi regime as the most
vicious in human history and therefore deserving of damnation at US
hands (During the US-instigated war with Iran, on the other hand,
Iraq was regarded as a docile regime which deserved not only US
assistance but weapons of mass destruction., as well.) Netanyahu's
regime, armed to the teeth, is not considered a threat by the US.
If Netanyahu decides to use his nuclear arsenal, he will use it to
eradicate the Arabs. The US would not consider this decision a
crime against humanity: for the US, after all, Arabs and Muslims
are not human beings.

+++ Editorials from Egyptian Papers Reprinted in Al-Ahram Weekly
1) Gamal Badawy, in Al-Wafd, December 11,1997

What we need is a democratic Intifada which will clear a backlog of
mistakes that have paralysed our political life and usher Egypt
into a new era of equality among political parties. This will mean
that no party should include the president in its ranks, which
would inevitably lead to the government exerting every effort to
keep its party in power regardless of any legal considerations.
This monopoly of the ruling party has undermined the core of
democracy. Democracy requires the state to adopt a neutral stance
towards political parties with no favoritism towards any particular
one. So long as this is not implemented, the democratic and
political institutions of this country will remain paralysed and
terrorist groups will continue to attract youth to join them.

2) Galel Aref, in Al-Arabi, December 15,1997

Today we face a crisis which has exposed the shortcomings of all
aspects of our society. And facing up to these shortcomings
requires a concentration of efforts which can only come about by
the citizens' true participation in everything from the loaf of
bread to a seat in parliament. And this cannot be brought about by
a government half of which does not speak to the other half and in
which feuds between members are known to all and sundry. It cannot
be brought about by a government which lives in the past and shuns
the future, nor one plagued by nepotism and a lack of vision, and
which only acts after the event, A government able to deal with the
crisis must be on the way.

3) Mahmoud Abdel-Moneim Riad, in October, December 14,1997

It is no longer important whether an Arab state has a religious or
secular system, or whether one can boast some trappings of
democracy while another is clearly dictatorial. The danger facing
the Gulf Cooperation Council does not come from neighboring Iran
but from the US and Israel.

Dr. Joseph Lerner, Co-Director
IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-9-7411645
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
pager 03-6750750 subscriber 4811