By most accounts, last week’s parliamentary elections in Morocco could be described as reasonably clean. There were few signs of the dirty tricks that had marked almost all elections in the kingdom ever since it regained independence in the 1950s. Nevertheless, a chorus of criticism can be heard. We are told that the turnout was the lowest ever, even though it was the same as the British general election of 2001 and the American presidential election of 2000.
The real question, however, is whether or not this election can have a real impact on the composition of the ruling elite and the policies it has followed in the past five decades.
For some 150 years, some Muslim intellectuals and rulers have tried to borrow aspects of the Western political experience. They have experimented with many Western ideas: nationalism, socialism, communism, fascism, and, more recently, religious fundamentalism. In every case, the result has been disappointing; in some cases, tragic.
The latest borrowed Western idea is electoralism. Holding elections has become a la mode in the Muslim world. It makes the Americans and the Europeans happy because they can delude themselves that their political model is emulated in a civilization that had been a rival for 1,000 years. It also gives local rulers a veneer of legitimacy that most lack.
Of the 53 Muslim states, 50 have held some form of elections in the past 10 years. A generation ago, fewer than a dozen held any elections. On the surface, therefore, elections have become the norm in the Muslim world. The problem, however, is that in most cases elections are held only to confirm those in power, and to offer a blank check for their policies.
In only four Muslim countries have the elections of the past decade resulted in changes of government. But even then, the changes took place within a narrow ruling elite.
In Bangladesh, elections serve as a mechanism for alternation between two lady prime ministers: Hasina Wajed, daughter of the martyred founder of the nation Mujibur Rahman, and Khaleda Zia, widow of the assassinated Gen. Zia ul-Rahman who served as president in the 1970s.
In Pakistan, power alternated between Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, under the gaze of the military who ended up seizing power for themselves in 1999.
In Turkey, one unstable coalition government has replaced another. But whenever there was a risk of meaningful change, for example by an Islamist-led coalition, the army intervened to preserve the status quo.
One election has also led to a very partial change of government in Indonesia after Suharto’s downfall.
Otherwise, elections have been used for the glorification and prolongation of the status quo dominated by small power groups, often a single man. The notorious 99.99 percent majorities, once current throughout the Third World, are now found only in Muslim countries.
The Muslim intellectuals and rulers who borrowed Western ideas often ended up discrediting them. In Iran, Communists fought under the banner of mullahs led by Khomeini. In Iraq, Communists became henchmen for Saddam Hussein. Self-styled nationalists in many Muslim countries did not hesitate to betray their nations to maintain their hold on power. The self-styled liberals saw capitalism as an excuse for self-enrichment through corruption.
Many Muslim intellectuals were obsessed with the idea of revolution, dreaming of red flags, guillotines and fiery speeches to cheering masses. They ended up praising as revolution every military coup carried out by semi-literate army officers who quickly became despots.
The discrediting of so many Western ideas has created a dangerous vacuum, especially because the Muslim world, mentally frozen for the past 400 years, has been unable to develop any serious political vision of its own. Without an organizing principle around which a normal political system could be made, the choice is between despotism and chaos.
The last such organizing principle is electoral democracy. Sadly, that, too, is being discredited.
During the past decade, this writer has witnessed or indirectly followed more than 30 elections in the Muslim world. While a few were reasonably clean, none attained the standards required for a genuine democratic exercise. This is because those who organized the elections ignored one fact: while there is no democracy without elections, there can be elections without democracy.
In the same vein, while there is no communism without a one-party state, there can be a one-party state without communism. While there is no revolution without a lot of killing, there can be a lot of killing without a revolution. While there is no socialism without the state control of the economy, there can be state control of the economy without socialism.
It is easy to ape the form and ignore the content.
Not long ago this writer witnessed an election in an Arab country that shall remain unnamed. At one polling station he asked to see the list of candidates. The list that was duly produced was more complete than expected: it included not only the names of the candidates but also the number of votes each had won. And all that, 24 hours before anyone had voted.
In another Arab state, the government forced thousands of Sudanese immigrant workers to adopt its nationality so that their vote would prevent the native voters from winning an election.
Poor nationalism, poor socialism, poor communism, poor liberalism and, soon, may be, poor electoral democracy.
Is there something in our soil and air that kills all foreign plants?
