The revolution in Tunisia and the uprising in Egypt have sent a message to autocrats across the region that popular demands cannot be ignored forever, and from listening to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, we’d say: Message received.
It is “a new era” in the Middle East, he told The Wall Street Journal. “If you don’t see the need of reform before what happened in Egypt and Tunisia, it’s too late to do any reform.”
Assad’s regime gets among the lowest marks in the world on democracy and human rights from Freedom House. He succeeded to power upon the death of his father, President Hafez al-Assad, after the constitutional age requirement was lowered from 40 to 34, which just happened to be his age.
If Assad is talking up the need for political reform — which he told the Journal “hasn’t progressed as quickly as he’d envisioned” during his tenure — it’s clear the tyrants are nervous.
That’s a good thing for anyone who believes in government by the consent of the governed. Assad is not likely to inaugurate real elections anytime soon, but he may loosen the reins — and even that may not be enough to prevent a mobilization of opposition. If Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is vulnerable, no dictator can feel secure.
It is tempting to believe that Tunisia was the equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall, a stunning surprise that will bring the dawn of democracy across a region long brutalized by strongmen and security forces. Many Arabs obviously share that hope and intend to do everything they can to make it happen. As one Egyptian protester told The Washington Post, “This is no longer a time of fear. It’s a time of change.”
The example of Eastern Europe is heartening. But it’s too early to know if the Middle East will be fertile soil for democracy. There have been waves of reform in Latin America on several occasions, but in many countries the tide has eventually receded. Pakistan has endured cycles of free elections followed by military rule for decades.
The danger in the Middle East is that Islamic extremists will be able to exploit the turmoil to gain power, either democratically or by force. The concern is especially pertinent in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood, which favors an Islamic government, has long been the biggest opposition force.
Chief opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei, whose secular credentials are impeccable, says the Egyptian Brotherhood “has nothing to do with the Iranian model, has nothing to do with extremism as we have seen it in Afghanistan and other places,” and must be included in any reform government. Let’s hope he’s right.
The U.S. is in a difficult position. Its longtime support of Mubarak has created deep resentment among his opponents. But if Washington can induce him to step aside, it may get some credit for upholding its best ideals.
Which way Egypt goes is a matter of grave import, given its size and leadership position in the Arab world. Mubarak, a despot at home, has been a voice for moderation in international relations, particularly regarding Israel. A more democratic Egypt could continue a constructive role in Middle Eastern affairs — or, if radicals prevail, sow trouble untold.
Supporters of democracy can only take heart when an oppressive ruler has to give way to popular resistance. As for what comes next, keep your fingers crossed.
