In Congressional testimony, Middle East expert
Febe Armanios outlines the pros and cons.
By Sally West Johnson '72
Febe Armanios is tall and elegant and has dark curly hair, dark eyes, and a smooth, golden-olive complexion that suggest her Coptic Egyptian heritage. She speaks softly and succinctly—her words tumble lightly from her mouth—but it is what Armanios has to say, rather than how she says it, that one may find so compelling.
You see, Armanios, an assistant professor of Middle East and Islamic history, has a rather informed opinion on the most ambitious foreign policy doctrine in this young century: the exportation of democracy to the Middle East.
In September 2002, the Bush administration issued an exhaustive national security strategy that included the bold goal of spreading democracy and human rights around the globe, particularly in the Muslim world. Following the invasion of Iraq, the rhetoric became a hallmark of administration speeches; by fostering democratic regimes that would embrace individual liberties, the argument goes, people would be released from the bonds of religious radicalism.
Born and raised in Cairo before immigrating to Ohio when she was 10, Armanios worries that idealism may cloak uncomfortable realities, and it was this message that she delivered before a crowded hearing room on Capitol Hill before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Reform last May.
"There has been a growing excitement in the Middle East with regard to the progress of democratic reforms," she told committee members. "The Iraqi elections [in early 2005], dubbed the 'Purple Revolution,' were seen by many as testament to the Bush administration's commitment to installing a democracy in that country. The popular protests in Beirut, dubbed the 'Cedar Revolution,' and the consequent withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon have also been viewed, by some observers, as a success for the administration's push for democracy."
But the problem for this administration, she said, is that democratic elections in some of those countries will open the door for the rise of small, radical parties of all sorts who may make common cause to accomplish their common agendas. "A question arises as to whether promoting democracy in some Middle Eastern countries, where Islamic opposition groups are major political and social actors, will result in the immediate replacement of secular regimes with Islamic governments," Armanios explained. "Open elections could bring Islamist groups into power and such groups might then transform the regimes that made elections possible into
theocracies."
From 2003 to 2004, Armanios worked as a Middle East affairs analyst for the Congressional Research Service, authoring a number of reports addressing such topics as Islamic religious schools, Islamic traditions of Wahhab-ism, and assistance to Afghan and Iraqi women.
In conversation—and in her testimony—she stresses the complexities of the Middle East and the prospect of democracy taking root in a land where authoritarian rule has thrived.
She rejects the notion put forward by some Bush administration critics that "Islamic democracy" may be an oxymoron, dooming efforts toward democratization to certain failure. To the contrary, Armanios told Congress, "Many Muslims resent the insinuation that Islam and democracy are intrinsically incompatible, arguing that basic Islamic teachings are well suited to ideas of justice, equality, freedom, and tolerance. Democracy, in this context, does not necessarily imply a Western-style interpretation; many believe that it is possible to build democratic societies without neglecting indigenous religious voices."
She points to Turkey as an example of a success story, but a success built by years of adapting to and accommodating the political realities of the region. "Turkey is cited as a case where Islamists were forced to temper their political views after years of struggling to be included in governance and to gain legitimacy from the voting populace." The radicals, in essence, realized they would have to moderate or remain on the outskirts of political power. "This involved gradual democratization of their discourses and ideologies, as well as a realization on their part that they must peacefully engage a sizable portion of the population that is not necessarily supportive of Islamic politics."
What the Turks did, the Iranians did not do: allow time for the tempering process. "In the case of Iran, however, the change was rapid, radical, and did not entail any bargaining or negotiation on the part of the religious groups with the broader population," she said. "The contrast between Turkey and Iran suggests that if Islamist groups are invested in a democratic system and realize that only within this system could they express and achieve their political goals, they could become agents for—rather than obstacles to—positive change."
That Armanios is so careful in the wording of her views (and the views of others) reflects the gravitas of the discussion, which is likely to shape U.S. foreign policy for years to come. Hence, her prescription offered in closing her testimony: She said the United States can support democratic reform by encouraging "diversity in the political landscape of the Middle East" and especially by learning more about the agenda and goals of the different Islamist groups.
She also urged "caution in the extent to which [the U.S.] recognizes sectarian, religious and patriarchal divisions in the region." At times, she noted, the U.S. has looked for friends and allies in the wrong places, thereby accomplishing nothing more than a substitution of "one traditional set of power holders with another." Instead, she said, "The U.S. should work with nongovernmental groups, grassroots organizations, and civil society in soliciting ways to include women and nontraditional power holders."
She urged Congress to support existing programs that are intended to promote democracy, and she believes that the U.S. State Department should push harder for improvements in human rights generally but particularly to promote freedom of religion, speech, and the press.
In the long run, she concluded, the rewards will prove to be worth the effort: "Democratic reform in the Middle East is a long-term process, both for indigenous advocates and the U.S. government. The United States must express a strong and consistent diplomatic and economic commitment to this project, on the one hand, and a willingness to be open to local and unforeseen interpretations of democracy, on the other. Striking this delicate balance will be of great benefit both to Americans and to citizens of the Middle East."
Powerful, heady words—perhaps the prescription for a more just and safe world—spoken in a soothing lilt, heavy implications conveyed by a timbre that is lighter than air.
Sally West Johnson '72 is a writer in Middlebury.