Charting Elections
in the Middle East
Mark LeVine
Although
Middle Eastern countries have seen a dramatic rise in the number
of national elections, there is a significant problem with "charting"
the march of democracy in the region through a narrowly focused
analysis of electoral processes. Numerous political, economic, and
cultural forces affecting electoral outcomes are easily overlooked,
particularly in studies of elections that frame such processes within
the borders of the nation-state.
Perhaps most important
are the ways in which the incumbent elites structure electoral systems
to influence election outcomes. These include factors such as voter
and candidate eligibility, how electoral districts are drawn, the
type of electoral system, and the distribution of assembly seats.
Restrictions on press freedoms also play a role in influencing outcomes.
In addition to limits on what topics journalists and publishers
may cover, many governments hold a monopoly on broadcast media.
This will change as the new information technologies, such as satellites
and the internet, engender a new information politics, perhaps forcing
governments and oppositions to learn to manipulate them as part
of their power-seeking strategies. The new technologies may also
begin to influence voters, though assess is likely to remain restricted
to the economic elite for decades to come.
Elections at the national
level cannot be fully understood without reference to experiences
with local elections. Since the early 1990s, Muslim Brotherhood
members had seen dramatic victories in the elections of numerous
professional associations. In Turkey, the Islamist Refat Party also
saw its influence expand through local and municipal elections in
the past few years. Afraid that these parties might replicate their
victories at the national level, both governments adopted a number
of measures in hopes of limiting these parties' influence.
Seemingly vital distinctions,
such as between multi-party and non-party elections, may be misleading
in terms of how inclusionary an electoral process has been. While
the no-party system of the Sudan in 1996 offered little chance for
citizens to have a meaningful say in the governance of their country,
Iran's no-party system continues to produce elections which have
a visible impact on governance. At the same time, no one expects
the multi-party elections in Egypt to produce a change in the country's
leadership. Similarities in electoral systems may therefore prove
to be a poor comparative tool without reference to broader political
contexts. Another factor that cannot be inferred from comparisons
based on electoral data is the role of foreign powers.
Lebanon's elections
have been strongly influenced by the military and political intervention
of Israel and Syria. In other countries, non-state actors such as
the International Monetary Fund play a limited but important role
in electoral politics. In Jordan, King Hussein sought not only to
produce a parliament full of loyalists, but one that would approve
the IMF structural-adjustment program he had already secretly negotiated.1
The study of elections
must be central to debates about the expansion of political participation
in the Middle East. As the chart illustrates, the region has indeed
seen a remarkable expansion of electoral processes that may prove
crucial to the spread of democracy. Nevertheless, one must be careful
to locate elections within a broader political context--one that
extends beyond the boundaries of the nation-state that are reproduced
in comparative charts.
Mark LeVine is
a doctoral candidate in Middle Eastern Studies at New York University.
Ed. Note: The chart referred
to will be available on this website within days. It is currently
available in the print edition of Middle East Report
Endnotes
1 Glen Robinson,
"Defensive Democratization in Jordan," International
Journal of Middle East Studies 30 (1998), p. 393.
|
