Saturday, February 12, 2005
From The New Republic 's DAILY EXPRESS
On Message by Joseph Braude Only at TNR OnlinePost date: 02.11.05
he Democrats had their rebuttal to the State of the Union address last week; yesterday Al Qaeda offered its own. Ayman Al Zawahiri, the organization's number two, broadcast a recorded message about five minutes in length on Al Jazeera around noon, eastern standard time. In it, he offered an alternative take on the meanings of "freedom" and "reform." Al Zawahiri's speech represents a departure from the Al Qaeda addresses of recent memory, most of which amounted to direct threats of violence targeting Western and Muslim regimes (including, needless to say, their civilian populations). This statement, by contrast, was not so much threat as political argumentation, and the audience was not Western but rather Arab and Muslim. Implicit in Al Zawahiri's speech was an acknowledgement that the United States is now actively competing in the war for hearts and minds in Muslim countries--leaving Al Qaeda no choice but to engage America at the level of politics and ideas. The irony, however, is that Al Zawahiri seemed in his speech to be entering the realm of politics precisely to make clear what Al Qaeda won't do politically: namely, countenance the entrance of Islamists into the democratic arena.
Below is my translation of parts of the speech, with my commentary. Al Zawahiri began by explaining what freedom is not:
The freedom that we want is not the freedom of interest-bearing banks and vast corporations and misleading mass media; not the freedom of the destruction of others for the sake of materialistic interests; and not the freedom of AIDS and an industry of obscenities and homosexual marriages; and not the freedom to use women as a commodity to gain clients, win deals, or attract tourists; not the freedom of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and not the freedom of trading in the apparatus of torture and supporting the regimes of oppression and Copts and suppression, the friends of America; and not the freedom of Israel, with their annihilation of the Muslims and destruction of the Aqsa mosque; and not the freedom of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
No big surprises here. Al Zawahiri draws attention to mainstream Muslim grievances against the United States, ranging from the universal abhorrence of our own human rights violations to the more parochial Islamist disdain for America's liberal sexual culture. The dig at "Copts," Egypt's sizeable indigenous Christian minority, is also a dig at the Mubarak government, which the Egyptian-born Al Zawahiri regards as more closely allied with American and Christian interests than the agenda of Islamists. This laundry list of anti-American headlines is Al Zawahiri's way of making the case to mainstream Muslims that America is not a desirable model for democracy or reform. He goes on to offer an alternative:
Our freedom is a freedom of monotheism and morals and probity and asceticism and justice. The freedom that we are striving toward is on three foundations: The first is the rule of the Shari'a. The Shari'a, revealed by Almighty God, is the path that is obligatory to be followed. ... The second foundation, upon which reform must be established--and this is a corollary to the first foundation--is the freedom of the lands of Islam and their liberation from every robbing and looting aggressor. It is unimaginable that any reform may be realized for us while we are under the coercion of American and Jewish occupation.
Al Zawahiri is developing an argument that many in the Arab world would embrace for reasons of their own--the notion that there can be no political freedom under occupation. This is Al Qaeda's equivalent of speaking to the center--trying to reach Al Jazeera's mainstream Arab and Muslim audiences. Having made his pitch to them, however, he moves on to what is almost certainly a less popular plank of his argument:
Reform cannot be realized under the coercion of governments installed by the occupier, through fraudulent elections, administered under the supervision of the United Nations, and under the protection of B-52 bombers and the missiles of Apache planes [sic].
The "governments" he is alluding to are apparently both the forthcoming Iraqi government and the government formed by the recent Palestinian election under "Jewish occupation," which he regards as equally illegitimate. Although there is no specific reference to Tuesday's Israeli-Palestinian mutual ceasefire declaration in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el Sheikh, it's fair to assume that the Al Qaeda leadership is eager to see the nascent quest for a truce derailed. Arguing for the illegitimacy of the Palestinian elections--and any moves toward rapprochement subsequently attempted by the elected Palestinian leadership--is Al Zawahiri's contribution to ongoing Islamist attempts to thwart the peace process. But perhaps more importantly, it is also his way of saying that Islamist groups like Hamas should accept no role in the deliberative democratic institutions emerging in the Palestinian territories.
As for the third foundation, which is also a corollary of the first foundation, it is the liberation of man. The Ummah [pan-Islamic nation] must snatch back its right to choose its ruler and call him to account and criticize him and depose him, and snatch back its right to enjoin good and end that which is abominable. ... The Ummah must undertake [to end] repression and brute force and theft and fraud and corruption and dynastic succession in rule, which our rulers are practicing with the blessings and support of the United States.
The reference to dynastic succession is meant to condemn the Gulf regimes, Morocco, Syria, and Egypt--where Hosni Mubarak is believed to be grooming his son Gamal for succession--all in one fell swoop. But note that Al Zawahiri refrains from using the word "democracy" or calling for free elections. He is in essence calling for the freedom of Muslim nations to choose an Islamist ruler. Mind you, he uses the word "ruler" in the singular, because Al Qaeda calls for one caliph to preside over the whole region.
As for the reference to the "liberation of man," it is a trope that Islamists experimented with during the 1990s--notably the urbane leader of Tunisia's Islamist Al Nahda ("Renaissance") movement, Rashid Al Ghannouchi. The idea, then as now, was to espouse a pseudo-universalist rhetoric that might begin to sound palatable to human-rights activists and the secular left. Islamist groups such as Al Nahda have historically been aware of the importance of making rhetorical overtures to left-wing and human-rights movements in the West--valuing their intervention on behalf of political prisoners tortured by Arab regimes, not to mention the potential for making common cause in a united front against globalization. (Al Zawahiri, to be sure, can only pay lip service to these ideas because, as evidenced by his anti-Coptic and anti-gay references, there isn't exactly a place for all mankind in the political union his movement envisions.)
But while Al Zawahiri is willing to make a nod to the Western left, he makes no similar overture toward reformers in the Arab world. On the question of whether Sunni Islamists of any shade should participate in Arab elections--be they in Gaza and the West Bank a few weeks back, or perhaps in Egypt down the road--Al Zawahiri seems to be taking a decisive stand. He urges the Ummah to "snatch back" the reins of power, apparently eschewing the possibility of gains for Islamists through a nonviolent electoral process. This is a rejection, for example, of Hamas ideologue Mahmoud Al Zahhar's statement earlier this week to a Gaza newspaper suggesting that his movement might join the Palestinian legislative assembly.
Al Qaeda may kill hundreds of innocents in Spain to influence the outcome of elections there--or deliver a tirade against George Bush on the eve of the American elections, apparently to influence voters here--but the movement seems to have no appetite for achieving its goals through elections in Arab and Muslim countries. In this respect, today's message wasn't just another hyperbolic rant. It drew a philosophical line in the sand. And among Arabs and Muslims, it may prove to be an unpopular one.
Joseph Braude is the author of The New Iraq: Rebuilding the Country for Its People, the Middle East, and the World.
On Message by Joseph Braude Only at TNR OnlinePost date: 02.11.05
he Democrats had their rebuttal to the State of the Union address last week; yesterday Al Qaeda offered its own. Ayman Al Zawahiri, the organization's number two, broadcast a recorded message about five minutes in length on Al Jazeera around noon, eastern standard time. In it, he offered an alternative take on the meanings of "freedom" and "reform." Al Zawahiri's speech represents a departure from the Al Qaeda addresses of recent memory, most of which amounted to direct threats of violence targeting Western and Muslim regimes (including, needless to say, their civilian populations). This statement, by contrast, was not so much threat as political argumentation, and the audience was not Western but rather Arab and Muslim. Implicit in Al Zawahiri's speech was an acknowledgement that the United States is now actively competing in the war for hearts and minds in Muslim countries--leaving Al Qaeda no choice but to engage America at the level of politics and ideas. The irony, however, is that Al Zawahiri seemed in his speech to be entering the realm of politics precisely to make clear what Al Qaeda won't do politically: namely, countenance the entrance of Islamists into the democratic arena.
Below is my translation of parts of the speech, with my commentary. Al Zawahiri began by explaining what freedom is not:
The freedom that we want is not the freedom of interest-bearing banks and vast corporations and misleading mass media; not the freedom of the destruction of others for the sake of materialistic interests; and not the freedom of AIDS and an industry of obscenities and homosexual marriages; and not the freedom to use women as a commodity to gain clients, win deals, or attract tourists; not the freedom of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and not the freedom of trading in the apparatus of torture and supporting the regimes of oppression and Copts and suppression, the friends of America; and not the freedom of Israel, with their annihilation of the Muslims and destruction of the Aqsa mosque; and not the freedom of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
No big surprises here. Al Zawahiri draws attention to mainstream Muslim grievances against the United States, ranging from the universal abhorrence of our own human rights violations to the more parochial Islamist disdain for America's liberal sexual culture. The dig at "Copts," Egypt's sizeable indigenous Christian minority, is also a dig at the Mubarak government, which the Egyptian-born Al Zawahiri regards as more closely allied with American and Christian interests than the agenda of Islamists. This laundry list of anti-American headlines is Al Zawahiri's way of making the case to mainstream Muslims that America is not a desirable model for democracy or reform. He goes on to offer an alternative:
Our freedom is a freedom of monotheism and morals and probity and asceticism and justice. The freedom that we are striving toward is on three foundations: The first is the rule of the Shari'a. The Shari'a, revealed by Almighty God, is the path that is obligatory to be followed. ... The second foundation, upon which reform must be established--and this is a corollary to the first foundation--is the freedom of the lands of Islam and their liberation from every robbing and looting aggressor. It is unimaginable that any reform may be realized for us while we are under the coercion of American and Jewish occupation.
Al Zawahiri is developing an argument that many in the Arab world would embrace for reasons of their own--the notion that there can be no political freedom under occupation. This is Al Qaeda's equivalent of speaking to the center--trying to reach Al Jazeera's mainstream Arab and Muslim audiences. Having made his pitch to them, however, he moves on to what is almost certainly a less popular plank of his argument:
Reform cannot be realized under the coercion of governments installed by the occupier, through fraudulent elections, administered under the supervision of the United Nations, and under the protection of B-52 bombers and the missiles of Apache planes [sic].
The "governments" he is alluding to are apparently both the forthcoming Iraqi government and the government formed by the recent Palestinian election under "Jewish occupation," which he regards as equally illegitimate. Although there is no specific reference to Tuesday's Israeli-Palestinian mutual ceasefire declaration in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el Sheikh, it's fair to assume that the Al Qaeda leadership is eager to see the nascent quest for a truce derailed. Arguing for the illegitimacy of the Palestinian elections--and any moves toward rapprochement subsequently attempted by the elected Palestinian leadership--is Al Zawahiri's contribution to ongoing Islamist attempts to thwart the peace process. But perhaps more importantly, it is also his way of saying that Islamist groups like Hamas should accept no role in the deliberative democratic institutions emerging in the Palestinian territories.
As for the third foundation, which is also a corollary of the first foundation, it is the liberation of man. The Ummah [pan-Islamic nation] must snatch back its right to choose its ruler and call him to account and criticize him and depose him, and snatch back its right to enjoin good and end that which is abominable. ... The Ummah must undertake [to end] repression and brute force and theft and fraud and corruption and dynastic succession in rule, which our rulers are practicing with the blessings and support of the United States.
The reference to dynastic succession is meant to condemn the Gulf regimes, Morocco, Syria, and Egypt--where Hosni Mubarak is believed to be grooming his son Gamal for succession--all in one fell swoop. But note that Al Zawahiri refrains from using the word "democracy" or calling for free elections. He is in essence calling for the freedom of Muslim nations to choose an Islamist ruler. Mind you, he uses the word "ruler" in the singular, because Al Qaeda calls for one caliph to preside over the whole region.
As for the reference to the "liberation of man," it is a trope that Islamists experimented with during the 1990s--notably the urbane leader of Tunisia's Islamist Al Nahda ("Renaissance") movement, Rashid Al Ghannouchi. The idea, then as now, was to espouse a pseudo-universalist rhetoric that might begin to sound palatable to human-rights activists and the secular left. Islamist groups such as Al Nahda have historically been aware of the importance of making rhetorical overtures to left-wing and human-rights movements in the West--valuing their intervention on behalf of political prisoners tortured by Arab regimes, not to mention the potential for making common cause in a united front against globalization. (Al Zawahiri, to be sure, can only pay lip service to these ideas because, as evidenced by his anti-Coptic and anti-gay references, there isn't exactly a place for all mankind in the political union his movement envisions.)
But while Al Zawahiri is willing to make a nod to the Western left, he makes no similar overture toward reformers in the Arab world. On the question of whether Sunni Islamists of any shade should participate in Arab elections--be they in Gaza and the West Bank a few weeks back, or perhaps in Egypt down the road--Al Zawahiri seems to be taking a decisive stand. He urges the Ummah to "snatch back" the reins of power, apparently eschewing the possibility of gains for Islamists through a nonviolent electoral process. This is a rejection, for example, of Hamas ideologue Mahmoud Al Zahhar's statement earlier this week to a Gaza newspaper suggesting that his movement might join the Palestinian legislative assembly.
Al Qaeda may kill hundreds of innocents in Spain to influence the outcome of elections there--or deliver a tirade against George Bush on the eve of the American elections, apparently to influence voters here--but the movement seems to have no appetite for achieving its goals through elections in Arab and Muslim countries. In this respect, today's message wasn't just another hyperbolic rant. It drew a philosophical line in the sand. And among Arabs and Muslims, it may prove to be an unpopular one.
Joseph Braude is the author of The New Iraq: Rebuilding the Country for Its People, the Middle East, and the World.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
THE BEAUTY OF IRANIAN DEMOCRACY
Blogger's 'Crime' Against the Islamic State
By Farouz Farzami
Farouz Farzami is the pseudonym of an Iranian journalist.
February 9, 2005
TEHRAN — "Excuse me, Miss, but here in my hand I have a warrant for your arrest," said a middle-aged man with a few days' growth of beard. "Please do not make any noise as you walk calmly to the Mercedes parked at the corner." When the man approached me, I had just left a bookstore. It crossed my mind to resist, but I thought better of it. In the car, I was flanked by two broad-shouldered men in black jackets. The man with the arrest warrant drove up Enqelab Avenue and waved the arrest warrant to assure me they were not kidnappers. "We are from the judiciary branch, and everything will be done within the framework of Islamic law," he said. "Do not worry. The whole thing should not last more than a couple of hours." I was annoyed but relieved, and not especially surprised. Arrest and interrogation of anyone who writes stories critical of the regime has become commonplace in Iran. I am a blogger, and I have written often and honestly about life in my country, so it's an occupational hazard.When we arrived at our destination, I was left standing outside with the late December sun penetrating the blindfold they had insisted I wear. The cold and fresh air suggested northern Tehran, which meant Evin, the most notorious prison. I stood there for about half an hour, my calf muscles aching. "Excuse me, how long do you think I will be kept here?" I asked the next person who spoke to me. "It depends on you," he replied. "If you cooperate, it will be brief." I was led down a spiral staircase. A woman with a velvet voice asked me to strip and handed me a prison uniform."But they told me it won't be more than a few hours." I was photographed and asked my height, weight, eye color and the number of children I have. "I am single," I said. All this was humiliating."That's why you are making trouble for our system," the woman said. "If you were married, you would not have time to write such nonsense." I was led to a cell, and a heavy, solid metal door was closed and locked. The cell was about 12 feet by 12 feet, with a small sink. The walls were blank, a recently painted cream color. Two gray blankets were folded on the floor. The ceiling was barred. Guards peeped in through a hole in the door every 20 minutes or so. I curled myself in a blanket. I had been expected home at noon. What do they want from me? On my second day in confinement, I asked a guard, "Do you know why I am here?" "I don't know," she replied. "Your interrogator will tell you." The next day, I was taken to a room down a long corridor and told to sit down. A fat hand with an agate stone ring set an interrogation form in front of me. Then he began asking about my Web log, which has hyperlinks on it to Western feminist groups."Do you accept the charges?" the interrogator asked."What charges?" "That you have written things in your Web log that go against the Islamic system and that encourage people to topple the system," he said. "You are inviting corrupt American liberalism to rule Iran." "I've tried to write my ideas and opinions in my Web log and to communicate with others in Farsi all over the world," I said. He was displeased."These answers will lead us nowhere, and you will stay here for years. Tell us the truth. How much have you received to write these offenses against the Islamic state? How are you and your fellow Web loggers organized?" How should I respond? I knew my mother must be terribly worried about me. What could I say to make sure I got out? "We are not organized against the state," I said. "I write because I want to criticize the system. There are some things in our state that should be corrected." "Why don't you write an e-mail directly to the supreme leader's office?" he asked. "The supreme leader considers all criticisms and takes corrective actions." "I hadn't thought about that," I said. This was nonsense, of course, but I saw an opening. "From now on, I will write directly to the supreme leader and stop writing in my Web log." "It is too late for that," he said. Back in my cell, I sobbed. After a while, the door opened."You can ask for the holy Koran to chant and pass your time better here," the gray-haired matron suggested. In the next session, four days later, I confessed to many of the accusations against me. As a reward, I was allowed to talk to my mother in the presence of my interrogator. Over the days that followed, I confessed to many things, including having had sex with my boyfriend, who has his own Web log. The admission filled me with guilt, both for having to discuss such intimate details and for having betrayed him. He is now complicit in the crime of extramarital sex.I remained in prison for 36 days. Now I am awaiting trial. On my release I was reminded, "Be thankful to God that we arrested you. If you had been detained by the intelligence department of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, they would surely have beaten you. Here you were our guest." Before I departed I was politely asked to fill out a form seeking suggestions for improving conditions in the jail.
Blogger's 'Crime' Against the Islamic State
By Farouz Farzami
Farouz Farzami is the pseudonym of an Iranian journalist.
February 9, 2005
TEHRAN — "Excuse me, Miss, but here in my hand I have a warrant for your arrest," said a middle-aged man with a few days' growth of beard. "Please do not make any noise as you walk calmly to the Mercedes parked at the corner." When the man approached me, I had just left a bookstore. It crossed my mind to resist, but I thought better of it. In the car, I was flanked by two broad-shouldered men in black jackets. The man with the arrest warrant drove up Enqelab Avenue and waved the arrest warrant to assure me they were not kidnappers. "We are from the judiciary branch, and everything will be done within the framework of Islamic law," he said. "Do not worry. The whole thing should not last more than a couple of hours." I was annoyed but relieved, and not especially surprised. Arrest and interrogation of anyone who writes stories critical of the regime has become commonplace in Iran. I am a blogger, and I have written often and honestly about life in my country, so it's an occupational hazard.When we arrived at our destination, I was left standing outside with the late December sun penetrating the blindfold they had insisted I wear. The cold and fresh air suggested northern Tehran, which meant Evin, the most notorious prison. I stood there for about half an hour, my calf muscles aching. "Excuse me, how long do you think I will be kept here?" I asked the next person who spoke to me. "It depends on you," he replied. "If you cooperate, it will be brief." I was led down a spiral staircase. A woman with a velvet voice asked me to strip and handed me a prison uniform."But they told me it won't be more than a few hours." I was photographed and asked my height, weight, eye color and the number of children I have. "I am single," I said. All this was humiliating."That's why you are making trouble for our system," the woman said. "If you were married, you would not have time to write such nonsense." I was led to a cell, and a heavy, solid metal door was closed and locked. The cell was about 12 feet by 12 feet, with a small sink. The walls were blank, a recently painted cream color. Two gray blankets were folded on the floor. The ceiling was barred. Guards peeped in through a hole in the door every 20 minutes or so. I curled myself in a blanket. I had been expected home at noon. What do they want from me? On my second day in confinement, I asked a guard, "Do you know why I am here?" "I don't know," she replied. "Your interrogator will tell you." The next day, I was taken to a room down a long corridor and told to sit down. A fat hand with an agate stone ring set an interrogation form in front of me. Then he began asking about my Web log, which has hyperlinks on it to Western feminist groups."Do you accept the charges?" the interrogator asked."What charges?" "That you have written things in your Web log that go against the Islamic system and that encourage people to topple the system," he said. "You are inviting corrupt American liberalism to rule Iran." "I've tried to write my ideas and opinions in my Web log and to communicate with others in Farsi all over the world," I said. He was displeased."These answers will lead us nowhere, and you will stay here for years. Tell us the truth. How much have you received to write these offenses against the Islamic state? How are you and your fellow Web loggers organized?" How should I respond? I knew my mother must be terribly worried about me. What could I say to make sure I got out? "We are not organized against the state," I said. "I write because I want to criticize the system. There are some things in our state that should be corrected." "Why don't you write an e-mail directly to the supreme leader's office?" he asked. "The supreme leader considers all criticisms and takes corrective actions." "I hadn't thought about that," I said. This was nonsense, of course, but I saw an opening. "From now on, I will write directly to the supreme leader and stop writing in my Web log." "It is too late for that," he said. Back in my cell, I sobbed. After a while, the door opened."You can ask for the holy Koran to chant and pass your time better here," the gray-haired matron suggested. In the next session, four days later, I confessed to many of the accusations against me. As a reward, I was allowed to talk to my mother in the presence of my interrogator. Over the days that followed, I confessed to many things, including having had sex with my boyfriend, who has his own Web log. The admission filled me with guilt, both for having to discuss such intimate details and for having betrayed him. He is now complicit in the crime of extramarital sex.I remained in prison for 36 days. Now I am awaiting trial. On my release I was reminded, "Be thankful to God that we arrested you. If you had been detained by the intelligence department of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, they would surely have beaten you. Here you were our guest." Before I departed I was politely asked to fill out a form seeking suggestions for improving conditions in the jail.
Some said it would never happen:
Saudis vote in historic election
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) -- Voters converged at polling stations in the Riyadh region on Thursday to participate in municipal elections, marking the first time that Saudis were taking part in a regular poll that conforms to international standards.
Women were banned from voting and running in the election, which represents a small political reform in this absolute monarchy. The first of the three-stage elections are only for half the country's municipal councils.
At polling station No. 40, a recreation center, election officials opened up the station by showing that three gray long ballot boxes were empty and they then locked, sealed, and stamped them to prevent fraud.
After their names were checked against a list, voters were allowed into a carpeted room where they went behind off-white screen to mark and submit their ballot cards. The smell of incense wafed through the room where voters cast their ballots.
"This was a wonderful moment," said Badr al-Faqih, a 54-year-old geography professor, moments after dropping the first vote into one of the ballot boxes. "This is a first step toward more elections."
Al-Faqih said he would keep his green voter's registration card "as a memento of this historic event."
Abdul Rahman al-Hussein, 53, a school principal, said he went to the polling station early to be among the first voter. "This is patriotic participation. I want this campaign to succeed," he said.
He said he chose his candidate based on the promises he made during the campaign, foremost of which is his promise to build children's parks.
More than 1,800 candidates were contesting 127 seats in the capital and surrounding villages on Thursday, with almost 700 of them running for seven seats in Riyadh. Only 149,000 out of 600,000 eligible voters have registered to vote. Two more phases will cover the rest of the country in March and April.
Ahmed al-Khalifa, a civil servant, said after voting, "This has been a unique experience. I did not want to register in the first place because I did not take the elections seriously. But I was afraid I would regret not registering and now I am glad I did."
Al-Khalifa said he wants to frame his registration card as a souvenir. He said he hoped the person he chose would work to improve the infrastructure and lighting in his neighborhood in Riyadh.
Abdul Nasser al-Zahrani, 46, an archeology professor, said, "This is the beginning of a new era. We now know what elections are and what it means to make your voice heard through proper channels. It is the beginning of democracy."
Asked about the fact that half of the members will be appointed, he said, "This is a first step and it is good as a first step but it should be followed by more steps." He said he was going to keep his card because "it is a symbol of the start of democracy."
Kutaiba al-Saddoun, 47, a wildlife conservation specialist, said he was happy to take part in the vote but, "We had expected that women would also have a role in this."
Asked to compare this experience with voting in Iraq, he said, "In Iraq, the election was to establish a new life to move the country from instability to stability. Here, the vote is to develop an already stable life."
At another polling station in an elementary school, officials checking names of voters sat in front of children's drawings and art works. Voters proceeded to an indoor basketball court to vote.
Abdullah al-Muhadib, 43, an auditor, said he was very happy with the experience but he would not have allowed his wife to vote if the government had permitted women to vote. "She is a queen at home but I am in charge of what takes place outside the house," he said.
Abdul Aziz al-Ghanam, 45, a land surveyor, had a different opinion. "A woman is a man's sister. I would not have had a problem with my wife voting," he said.
Saudis vote in historic election
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) -- Voters converged at polling stations in the Riyadh region on Thursday to participate in municipal elections, marking the first time that Saudis were taking part in a regular poll that conforms to international standards.
Women were banned from voting and running in the election, which represents a small political reform in this absolute monarchy. The first of the three-stage elections are only for half the country's municipal councils.
At polling station No. 40, a recreation center, election officials opened up the station by showing that three gray long ballot boxes were empty and they then locked, sealed, and stamped them to prevent fraud.
After their names were checked against a list, voters were allowed into a carpeted room where they went behind off-white screen to mark and submit their ballot cards. The smell of incense wafed through the room where voters cast their ballots.
"This was a wonderful moment," said Badr al-Faqih, a 54-year-old geography professor, moments after dropping the first vote into one of the ballot boxes. "This is a first step toward more elections."
Al-Faqih said he would keep his green voter's registration card "as a memento of this historic event."
Abdul Rahman al-Hussein, 53, a school principal, said he went to the polling station early to be among the first voter. "This is patriotic participation. I want this campaign to succeed," he said.
He said he chose his candidate based on the promises he made during the campaign, foremost of which is his promise to build children's parks.
More than 1,800 candidates were contesting 127 seats in the capital and surrounding villages on Thursday, with almost 700 of them running for seven seats in Riyadh. Only 149,000 out of 600,000 eligible voters have registered to vote. Two more phases will cover the rest of the country in March and April.
Ahmed al-Khalifa, a civil servant, said after voting, "This has been a unique experience. I did not want to register in the first place because I did not take the elections seriously. But I was afraid I would regret not registering and now I am glad I did."
Al-Khalifa said he wants to frame his registration card as a souvenir. He said he hoped the person he chose would work to improve the infrastructure and lighting in his neighborhood in Riyadh.
Abdul Nasser al-Zahrani, 46, an archeology professor, said, "This is the beginning of a new era. We now know what elections are and what it means to make your voice heard through proper channels. It is the beginning of democracy."
Asked about the fact that half of the members will be appointed, he said, "This is a first step and it is good as a first step but it should be followed by more steps." He said he was going to keep his card because "it is a symbol of the start of democracy."
Kutaiba al-Saddoun, 47, a wildlife conservation specialist, said he was happy to take part in the vote but, "We had expected that women would also have a role in this."
Asked to compare this experience with voting in Iraq, he said, "In Iraq, the election was to establish a new life to move the country from instability to stability. Here, the vote is to develop an already stable life."
At another polling station in an elementary school, officials checking names of voters sat in front of children's drawings and art works. Voters proceeded to an indoor basketball court to vote.
Abdullah al-Muhadib, 43, an auditor, said he was very happy with the experience but he would not have allowed his wife to vote if the government had permitted women to vote. "She is a queen at home but I am in charge of what takes place outside the house," he said.
Abdul Aziz al-Ghanam, 45, a land surveyor, had a different opinion. "A woman is a man's sister. I would not have had a problem with my wife voting," he said.
FRUM on Iraq:
Radical Islamic terrorists across the Middle East have thus far claimed to represent a global Islamic nation, yet millions of Iraqis risked their lives on January 30 to reject that claim with their ballots.
After the initial euphoric response to Iraq’s elections, caveats have inevitably followed. We hear it said that elections are not the same as democracy, that many troubles lie ahead, that the insurgency remains alive and deadly. And all this is, of course, true.
But it is also true that the Iraq election is a transforming event, not just for Iraq but for the whole Muslim Middle East—an event so transforming that we have not yet absorbed its full importance.
Terrorist Claims
All over the Islamic world, the leaders of the terrorist jihad—not only Osama bin Laden, but also his allies and competitors in Kashmir, in the Palestinian territories, in Algeria, in Indonesia, in Western Europe, and now in Iraq—have claimed to be the authentic representatives of a global Islamic nation. They have dismissed existing governments as puppets of the infidel West and presented themselves as the only effective alternative.
These claims are lies of course, but they are lies with enough truth mixed in to sway a generation of Middle Eastern young men. Some naive apologists for terror have suggested that terrorism is an act of desperation by the poor and downtrodden. The truth about the terrorists is actually more disturbing: Many of them, and most of their leaders, come from elite backgrounds. They are well educated, often with medicine or engineering degrees—young men with many choices in life. They are motivated, as were many of their Communist and Nazi antecedents, by a perverted sense of idealism.
Against that perverted idealism, what has the Middle Eastern status quo to offer? Other authoritarian regimes, China’s for example, can offer their people prosperity in exchange for political quiet. But the economies of the Arab Middle East have been failing for almost twenty years. They can offer nothing but unemployment and repression.
Michael Scheuer, who ran the CIA’s bin Laden unit under Bill Clinton and has since found a second career as an unsettlingly sympathetic analyst of bin Ladenism in books such as Imperial Hubris, gives this explanation of the Islamic terrorist’s appeal: “In a world where Muslim leaders are mostly effete kings and princes who preach austere Islam but live in luxuriant debauchery; or murderous family dictatorships, like Iraq’s Husseins, Egypt’s Mubaraks, Libya’s Qadahfis, and Syria’s Assads; or coup-installed generals holding countries together after politicians have emptied the till,” bin Laden and his fellow extremists have won the aura of Robin Hood. “With no competition for the Muslim world’s leadership, and with their battles now seen globally in real-time by proliferating Arab satellite television and radio channels, the mujahideen hold the respect, gratitude, and love of many Muslims.”
True Electoral Legitimacy
Who could challenge these pretensions? The voters of Iraq just did.
We do not yet know definitively what percentage of the eligible population voted (as of this writing on February 3, the figure appears to be around 60 percent). But we do know that millions of Iraqis defied fear and risked their lives to join a democratic political process. With those brave actions, they cut the heart out of the pretensions of the jihad terrorists. Those terrorists claim that Allah has appointed them to rule the Muslim world and that their willingness to kill and die is all the authority they need. A majority of Iraqis have just put their lives on the line to reject that claim.
The leaders produced by the January 30 elections will no doubt have many defects and weaknesses. But they will, as elected leaders always do, boast one supreme strength: the legitimacy that comes from the most direct and obvious possible connection to the wishes of the people. The jihadis have responded to elections with murder, and that too has been seen globally and in real time on Arab media.
The terrorists have responded to the threat of political competition with hysterical denunciation. A week before the vote, the Jordanian-born terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi issued an amazing statement denouncing the “evil principle” of democracy and declaring something close to religious war, not only against the American infidels, but against Iraq’s majority Shiite population. This is not a winning political strategy, to put it mildly.
Zarqawi’s response to the election has now put him, his car-bombers, and his assassins on the wrong side of three great moral divides. Politically, what was once a war against an occupation government has been redefined as a war against democracy. Religiously, what was once a Muslim campaign against foreign Christians has been redefined as an extremist Sunni war against Iraq’s Shiites. And nationalistically, what was once a war against the Americans has been redefined as a war against the government and the armed forces of an emerging democratic Iraq.
None of this means that America’s problems in Iraq have come to any kind of end or even that the end is close at hand. What it does mean though is that George Bush’s definition of the conflict has just been endorsed by a large majority of the people of Iraq. This is freedom at war with fear. And fear has just lost a hugely important battle.
David Frum is a resident fellow at AEI.
Radical Islamic terrorists across the Middle East have thus far claimed to represent a global Islamic nation, yet millions of Iraqis risked their lives on January 30 to reject that claim with their ballots.
After the initial euphoric response to Iraq’s elections, caveats have inevitably followed. We hear it said that elections are not the same as democracy, that many troubles lie ahead, that the insurgency remains alive and deadly. And all this is, of course, true.
But it is also true that the Iraq election is a transforming event, not just for Iraq but for the whole Muslim Middle East—an event so transforming that we have not yet absorbed its full importance.
Terrorist Claims
All over the Islamic world, the leaders of the terrorist jihad—not only Osama bin Laden, but also his allies and competitors in Kashmir, in the Palestinian territories, in Algeria, in Indonesia, in Western Europe, and now in Iraq—have claimed to be the authentic representatives of a global Islamic nation. They have dismissed existing governments as puppets of the infidel West and presented themselves as the only effective alternative.
These claims are lies of course, but they are lies with enough truth mixed in to sway a generation of Middle Eastern young men. Some naive apologists for terror have suggested that terrorism is an act of desperation by the poor and downtrodden. The truth about the terrorists is actually more disturbing: Many of them, and most of their leaders, come from elite backgrounds. They are well educated, often with medicine or engineering degrees—young men with many choices in life. They are motivated, as were many of their Communist and Nazi antecedents, by a perverted sense of idealism.
Against that perverted idealism, what has the Middle Eastern status quo to offer? Other authoritarian regimes, China’s for example, can offer their people prosperity in exchange for political quiet. But the economies of the Arab Middle East have been failing for almost twenty years. They can offer nothing but unemployment and repression.
Michael Scheuer, who ran the CIA’s bin Laden unit under Bill Clinton and has since found a second career as an unsettlingly sympathetic analyst of bin Ladenism in books such as Imperial Hubris, gives this explanation of the Islamic terrorist’s appeal: “In a world where Muslim leaders are mostly effete kings and princes who preach austere Islam but live in luxuriant debauchery; or murderous family dictatorships, like Iraq’s Husseins, Egypt’s Mubaraks, Libya’s Qadahfis, and Syria’s Assads; or coup-installed generals holding countries together after politicians have emptied the till,” bin Laden and his fellow extremists have won the aura of Robin Hood. “With no competition for the Muslim world’s leadership, and with their battles now seen globally in real-time by proliferating Arab satellite television and radio channels, the mujahideen hold the respect, gratitude, and love of many Muslims.”
True Electoral Legitimacy
Who could challenge these pretensions? The voters of Iraq just did.
We do not yet know definitively what percentage of the eligible population voted (as of this writing on February 3, the figure appears to be around 60 percent). But we do know that millions of Iraqis defied fear and risked their lives to join a democratic political process. With those brave actions, they cut the heart out of the pretensions of the jihad terrorists. Those terrorists claim that Allah has appointed them to rule the Muslim world and that their willingness to kill and die is all the authority they need. A majority of Iraqis have just put their lives on the line to reject that claim.
The leaders produced by the January 30 elections will no doubt have many defects and weaknesses. But they will, as elected leaders always do, boast one supreme strength: the legitimacy that comes from the most direct and obvious possible connection to the wishes of the people. The jihadis have responded to elections with murder, and that too has been seen globally and in real time on Arab media.
The terrorists have responded to the threat of political competition with hysterical denunciation. A week before the vote, the Jordanian-born terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi issued an amazing statement denouncing the “evil principle” of democracy and declaring something close to religious war, not only against the American infidels, but against Iraq’s majority Shiite population. This is not a winning political strategy, to put it mildly.
Zarqawi’s response to the election has now put him, his car-bombers, and his assassins on the wrong side of three great moral divides. Politically, what was once a war against an occupation government has been redefined as a war against democracy. Religiously, what was once a Muslim campaign against foreign Christians has been redefined as an extremist Sunni war against Iraq’s Shiites. And nationalistically, what was once a war against the Americans has been redefined as a war against the government and the armed forces of an emerging democratic Iraq.
None of this means that America’s problems in Iraq have come to any kind of end or even that the end is close at hand. What it does mean though is that George Bush’s definition of the conflict has just been endorsed by a large majority of the people of Iraq. This is freedom at war with fear. And fear has just lost a hugely important battle.
David Frum is a resident fellow at AEI.
Calling All Democrats
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
In the past week, I've received several e-mail notes from Democrats about the Iraq elections, or heard comments from various Democratic lawmakers - always along the following lines: "Remember, Vietnam also had an election, and you recall how that ended." Or, "O.K., the election was nice, but none of it was worth $100 billion or 10,000 killed and wounded." Or, "You know, we've actually created more terrorists in Iraq - election or not."
I think there is much to criticize about how the war in Iraq has been conducted, and the outcome is still uncertain. But those who suggest that the Iraqi election is just beanbag, and that all we are doing is making the war on terrorism worse as a result of Iraq, are speaking nonsense.
Here's the truth: There is no single action we could undertake anywhere in the world to reduce the threat of terrorism that would have a bigger impact today than a decent outcome in Iraq. It is that important. And precisely because it is so important, it should not be left to Donald Rumsfeld.
Democrats need to start thinking seriously about Iraq - the way Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton have. If France - the mother of all blue states - can do it, so, too, can the Democrats. Otherwise, they will be absenting themselves from the most important foreign policy issue of our day.
Here are four things Democrats should be excited about:
What Iraq is now embarking on is the first attempt - ever - by the citizens of a multiethnic, multireligious Arab state to draw up their own social contract, their own constitution, for how they should share power and resources, protect minority rights and balance mosque and state. I have no idea whether they will succeed. Much will depend on whether the Shiites want to be a wise and inclusive majority and whether the Sunnis want to be a smart and collaborative minority.
There will be a lot of trial and error in the months ahead. But this is a hugely important horizontal dialogue because if Iraqis can't forge a social contract, it would suggest that no other Arab country can - since virtually all of them are similar mixtures of tribes, ethnicities and religions. That would mean that they can be ruled only by iron-fisted kings or dictators, with all the negatives that flow from that.
But - but - if Iraqis succeed in forging a social contract in the hardest place of all, it means that democracy is actually possible anywhere in the Arab world.
Democrats do not favor using military force against Iran's nuclear program or to compel regime change there. That is probably wise. But they don't really have a diplomatic option. I've got one: Iraq. Iraq is our Iran policy.
If we can help produce a representative government in Iraq - based on free and fair elections and with a Shiite leadership that accepts minority rights and limits on clerical involvement in politics - it will exert great pressure on the ayatollah-dictators running Iran. In Iran's sham "Islamic democracy," only the mullahs decide who can run. Over time, Iranian Shiites will demand to know why they can't have the same freedoms as their Iraqi cousins right next door. That will drive change in Iran. Just be patient.
The war on terrorism is a war of ideas. The greatest restraint on human behavior is not a police officer or a fence - it's a community and a culture. Palestinian suicide bombing has stopped not because of the Israeli fence or because Palestinians are no longer "desperate." It has stopped because the Palestinians had an election, and a majority voted to get behind a diplomatic approach. They told the violent minority that suicide bombing - for now - is shameful.
What Arabs and Muslims say about their terrorists is the only thing that will protect us in the long run. It takes a village, and the Iraqi election was the Iraqi village telling the violent minority that what it is doing is shameful. The fascist minority in Iraq is virulent, and some jihadists will stop at nothing. But the way you begin to drain the swamps of terrorism is when you create a democratic context for those with good ideas to denounce those with bad ones.
Egypt and Syrian-occupied Lebanon both have elections this year. Watch how the progressives and those demanding representative government are empowered in their struggle against the one-man rulers in Egypt and Syria - if the Iraqi experiment succeeds.
We have paid a huge price in Iraq. I want to get out as soon as we can. But trying to finish the job there, as long as we have real partners, is really important - and any party that says otherwise will become unimportant.
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
In the past week, I've received several e-mail notes from Democrats about the Iraq elections, or heard comments from various Democratic lawmakers - always along the following lines: "Remember, Vietnam also had an election, and you recall how that ended." Or, "O.K., the election was nice, but none of it was worth $100 billion or 10,000 killed and wounded." Or, "You know, we've actually created more terrorists in Iraq - election or not."
I think there is much to criticize about how the war in Iraq has been conducted, and the outcome is still uncertain. But those who suggest that the Iraqi election is just beanbag, and that all we are doing is making the war on terrorism worse as a result of Iraq, are speaking nonsense.
Here's the truth: There is no single action we could undertake anywhere in the world to reduce the threat of terrorism that would have a bigger impact today than a decent outcome in Iraq. It is that important. And precisely because it is so important, it should not be left to Donald Rumsfeld.
Democrats need to start thinking seriously about Iraq - the way Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton have. If France - the mother of all blue states - can do it, so, too, can the Democrats. Otherwise, they will be absenting themselves from the most important foreign policy issue of our day.
Here are four things Democrats should be excited about:
What Iraq is now embarking on is the first attempt - ever - by the citizens of a multiethnic, multireligious Arab state to draw up their own social contract, their own constitution, for how they should share power and resources, protect minority rights and balance mosque and state. I have no idea whether they will succeed. Much will depend on whether the Shiites want to be a wise and inclusive majority and whether the Sunnis want to be a smart and collaborative minority.
There will be a lot of trial and error in the months ahead. But this is a hugely important horizontal dialogue because if Iraqis can't forge a social contract, it would suggest that no other Arab country can - since virtually all of them are similar mixtures of tribes, ethnicities and religions. That would mean that they can be ruled only by iron-fisted kings or dictators, with all the negatives that flow from that.
But - but - if Iraqis succeed in forging a social contract in the hardest place of all, it means that democracy is actually possible anywhere in the Arab world.
Democrats do not favor using military force against Iran's nuclear program or to compel regime change there. That is probably wise. But they don't really have a diplomatic option. I've got one: Iraq. Iraq is our Iran policy.
If we can help produce a representative government in Iraq - based on free and fair elections and with a Shiite leadership that accepts minority rights and limits on clerical involvement in politics - it will exert great pressure on the ayatollah-dictators running Iran. In Iran's sham "Islamic democracy," only the mullahs decide who can run. Over time, Iranian Shiites will demand to know why they can't have the same freedoms as their Iraqi cousins right next door. That will drive change in Iran. Just be patient.
The war on terrorism is a war of ideas. The greatest restraint on human behavior is not a police officer or a fence - it's a community and a culture. Palestinian suicide bombing has stopped not because of the Israeli fence or because Palestinians are no longer "desperate." It has stopped because the Palestinians had an election, and a majority voted to get behind a diplomatic approach. They told the violent minority that suicide bombing - for now - is shameful.
What Arabs and Muslims say about their terrorists is the only thing that will protect us in the long run. It takes a village, and the Iraqi election was the Iraqi village telling the violent minority that what it is doing is shameful. The fascist minority in Iraq is virulent, and some jihadists will stop at nothing. But the way you begin to drain the swamps of terrorism is when you create a democratic context for those with good ideas to denounce those with bad ones.
Egypt and Syrian-occupied Lebanon both have elections this year. Watch how the progressives and those demanding representative government are empowered in their struggle against the one-man rulers in Egypt and Syria - if the Iraqi experiment succeeds.
We have paid a huge price in Iraq. I want to get out as soon as we can. But trying to finish the job there, as long as we have real partners, is really important - and any party that says otherwise will become unimportant.
