Michael J. Totten: A Middle-east democracy success story

March 11, 2007

A Middle-east democracy success story

By the Sandmonkey

It's hard not to get excited over what's going on in Muritania. I mean, a country that was ruled by a despot for 21 years gets a military coup, that gets done by a group of military officers who chose not to rule the people but hold fair and democratic elections, where not a single one of them or anyone backed by them gets to run, and where they will resign from power and the military after the new government is in place, and this is the middle-east? And they did this totally by themselves, without foreign intervention or pressure? How could you not love that?

Power in Mauritania has never changed hands at the ballot box, although past votes have been held by dictators amid opposition cries
of fraud. The last president, Maaoya Sid'Ahmed Ould Taya, took power in
a 1984 coup and held it until a popular military junta led by Col. Ely
Ould Mohamed Vall toppled him in August 2005.

Vall has been praised for ending the nation's history of totalitarian rule, making good on promises to ensure a free press and
establish an independent judiciary. In June, he oversaw a successful
referendum that enshrined basic constitutional liberties and limited
future presidents to two five-year terms. Municipal and legislative
elections took place in November.

"We have big hopes for democracy," said Ahmed Ould Daddah, a leading candidate in Sunday's race and a longtime opposition figure who ran
twice against Taya in past ballots and spent four years under house
arrest. "People are afraid of a return to the old ways. They are
paranoid about this."

And they won't. Once given a choice, no one would take tyranny over democracy!

Let's hope the entire middle-east follows suit one day!

Posted by The Sandmonkey at March 11, 2007 11:00 AM

Comments

Couple things.

Mauritanea isnt in "Middle East" i know that Middle East use is often wrong but it's far streching when applied for Mauritanea that is North Africa Atlantic Coast. Maybe for US that sounds more correct but not for an European.

Now that's good news but the linking is not correct made.

Regards

Posted by: lucklucky at March 11, 2007 11:40 AM

Lucko

It seems to me that when there's talk about islamists in Algeria and Morrocco, the Algerian politics, the Madrid bombings and their connections to the Maghreb etc,etc,, no one seems to distinguish 'Middle-East' dynamics from "North or Saharan African" issues in these types of contexts.

And quite rightly.

Semantics?

What's your point?

Posted by: ankhfkhonsu at March 11, 2007 12:30 PM

Hey, Sandmonkey! Welcome. Technically, it seems all of what lucklucky refers to as Middle East is (I was recently told) Near East. Quibbling.

A poor, dry, Arabic-speaking, 100% Muslim, 70% Moorish country is taking a serious run at democracy. Almost unheard of in this day and age. Unlikely, for that matter, but we can all wish them well.

Posted by: Pam at March 11, 2007 02:57 PM

No, this isn't the middle east, this is French West Africa, because the French only pretended to de-colonize the region. The currency is French-controlled CFA franc and last I checked foreign aid was the largest component of Mauritania's GNP.

When the French want to enforce a change of government in Mauritania, Burkina Faso, et al they usually need only stop exporting gourmet foods to the stores catering to the local elite. If that fails, they cut off their bank accounts and restrict travel to and from their villas in the south of France. If that fails - usually because of civil disturbances - then the French send in troops.

Sorry to disappoint you, SM. But don't feel down about it; go have some nice paté de foie gras and a bottle of wine instead!

Posted by: Solomon2 at March 11, 2007 04:10 PM

that is how democracy is supposed to work. it comes from within the people. it never works when it comes from outside interference. i believe iraq is a prime example of that. whether mauritania is a middle eastern country or not, may not be the important issue here, but rather that it was done by the people for the people. good for them.
btw, you know mauritania is a middle eastern country if bush says, "hey, because iraq had an election, we influenced other countries in the middle east". he said those words when the "cedar revolution" took place, claiming that it was due to iraq, rather than the actual truth which was hariri's death.
peace

Posted by: buckeye at March 11, 2007 07:29 PM

it comes from within the people. it never works when it comes from outside interference.

Claptrap. Consider Germany, Japan, and France: all are countries where democracy was successfully forced upon the country.

Posted by: Solomon2 at March 11, 2007 09:03 PM

It's worth saying that typically the Middle East and North Africa are lumped together for the purposes of analysis - MENA, at least at the World Bank, IMF, and many universities. It's often a shortcut for "Arab" or "Arab/Muslim Culture," which is why this election is such a big deal.

Posted by: Josh at March 12, 2007 05:59 AM

Good story, Sandmonkey. I don't know much about Mauritania myself, so I'd like to see some pushback on the "French West Africa" angle, as I don't have any obvious certainty that it's wrong (the serious version, being, of course, that's it's an exceptional case due to French influence, not the smack being talked in comments.)

It's been clear for a while that the Middle East, in places where the state regimes are weak, are interested in two things: a) democracy and b) killing Americans. This was clear from Iran, it's clear from Iraq, clear from Lebanon (substitute Israelis for Americans), etc etc etc. So this doesn't surprise me at all. Somalia is another example: whatever was cooking down there before we manufactured the Ethopian invasion, it was clearly going to me more democratic, small-d sense, possible large-D as well, than the warlord stew previous.

How we disentangle the two threads remains to be seen.

This is, however, possibly the first example I've seen where it's not Islamists leading the democratization charge, which, even more so for the typical commenter than me, is probably seen as a good sign.

Posted by: glasnost at March 12, 2007 07:49 AM

Unfortunately, a few nations have chosen tyranny from democracy, however brief the flirtation.

The attraction of this situation is that, like Turkey, the generals care enough about democracy to keep some cheap demagogue from declaring himself dictator(Like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, no matter what you think about the man "ruling by edict" is not a sign of democracy).

As long as either a great number of people (Read: America, the Civil War as an example, misguided, but an example), a large estate (Read: Turkey), or powerful cultural icons (Read: England) are willing to protect democracy, then it will flourish.

Let's not pretend keeping people from devolving from democracy into despotism, or even oligarchy is easy. And as a wise man said, sometimes there's no difference between 1 tyrant 1000 miles away, and 1000 tyrants 1 mile away.

God give them the strength to create and maintain a nation of freedom.

Posted by: Berkeley Non-Conformist at March 12, 2007 11:04 AM

So, Solomon, if the French are in such total control in what you style French West Africa, why is this election happening? Either,
a) you think France has had a sudden decision to do things differently -- but only in this one country, or
b) you see this as a fraud, or
c) you think this is just a trial, and France will roll democracy out across "French West Africa" in the near future.

Care to enlighten us as to which? (Or if I've missed one.) And why you think so?

Thanks

Posted by: wj at March 12, 2007 12:37 PM

Mauritania is as Middle Eastern as Algeria. It is a member of the Arab League and the Arab Maghreb Union. It is basically the border state between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. Whether or not France exerts significiant cultural or economic influence is irrelevant; this is the case in all the countries of the Maghreb. Historically what is now Mauritania was more closely associated with Morocco and the tribes of the Algerian Sahara. It may not be quite as Middle Eastern as Egypt, but it is a part of the general region.

Posted by: Nouri Lumendifi at March 12, 2007 04:32 PM

However, I should say that this one country does not mean anything in the big scheme. Its transformation will not affect Egypt or the countries close to the Arab core. Those countries have an entirely different problem relative to the ones faced by Mauritania and to a lesser extent the rest of the Maghreb. Their are about blood feuds, and massive cultural and racial rivalries that are just not found to the same extent in the West of the Arab world. They are still fucked. They're not really going anywhere any time soon, democratically speaking.

Posted by: Nouri Lumendifi at March 12, 2007 04:35 PM

Mauritania is as Middle Eastern as Algeria.

In other words, not at all in the Middle East?

It is, however, considered part of the Greater Middle East, which strikes me as odd, considering that it's at a more Westernly longitude than Great Britain.

Regardless, good news.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at March 12, 2007 04:43 PM

By the way, SM, the first link in your post is seriously messed up.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at March 12, 2007 05:08 PM

Glasnost:

So this doesn't surprise me at all. Somalia is another example: whatever was cooking down there before we manufactured the Ethopian invasion, it was clearly going to me more democratic, small-d sense, possible large-D as well, than the warlord stew previous.

What do you mean we manufactured the Ethiopian invasion? Doesn’t such an assumption (in your case, a statement of fact) presuppose that the Ethiopians are controlled by the United States? Don’t you think that the Ethiopians might be motivated by their own perceived best interests? What an insulting and paternalistic attitude.

Posted by: Zak at March 12, 2007 09:46 PM

Glasnost:

Posted by: Zak at March 12, 2007 09:46 PM

Glasnost:

Posted by: Zak at March 12, 2007 09:47 PM

Nouri wrote: Mauritania is as Middle Eastern as Algeria. It is a member of the Arab League and the Arab Maghreb Union.

It would appear from the CIA World Factbook that Mauritania may not be as Middle Eastern as Algeria.

Nationality:
noun: Mauritanian(s)
adjective: Mauritanian

Ethnic groups:
mixed Moor/black 40%, Moor 30%, black 30%
Religions:
Muslim 100%
Languages:
Arabic (official), Pulaar, Soninke, French, Hassaniya, Wolof
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mr.html

The official language might be Arabic, but overlooking French, the other languages spoken there are quite African. In fact, I know a guy from Senagal who is Wolof and there is nothing Middle Eastern about him; not from a cultural or physical aspect. Mauritania clearly has some connection to North Africa, but it appears to be very African – even sub-Saharan African – in many other ways.

Posted by: Zak at March 12, 2007 09:58 PM

My apologies are about the multiple posts.

Posted by: Zak at March 12, 2007 10:00 PM

wj: they want a corruptible democracy in place before the oil money starts gushing in. Total will get the contracts the previous government gave to Woodside Petroleum, and the local officials will get their villas in the south of France.

Zak: it's an easy guess that the U.S. encouraged the Ethiopians to invade. Certainly the U.S. provided air support afterwards. Nobody "controls" Ethiopians; Ethiopia was the one country in Africa never successfully conquered by Europeans.

Posted by: Solomon2 at March 13, 2007 08:31 AM

Zak - lol! Do I think the Ethiopians might be motivated by their own best interests? If you mean, the perceived interests of their tyrannical despot in sucking up to the US (the best source of military equipment in the world, remember) and avoiding pressure to reverse the increasing despotism in his own regime?
If so, then I sure do.

After, Zimbabwe tried to rely on China for similar purposes, and is still headed inevitably down the sh*tter. We're still, apparently, irreplacable in this regard.

Posted by: glasnost at March 13, 2007 10:35 AM

Oh, PS, if any genuine serious observers make it this far, I'm sure the Ethiopians could come up with their own reasons to hate and fear transfers of power on their own borders, especially ones not dictated by them personally. As for whether or not they would have invaded on their own - who knows, because they weren't on their own. How many angels can dance where?

Posted by: glasnost at March 13, 2007 10:37 AM

The other languages are minority languages, like Berber in Morocco and Algeria. The country is 40% Arabo-Berber and 30% Moor. These ethnic groups are a majority and are both disctictly Middle Eastern. The Middle East is a cultural unit. The 30% that is African and speaks African langauges is much like Sudan's non-Arab population. Mauritania's culture, dominant language (Hassaniyah Arabic, which is also spoken in southern Algeria and Morocco) is very Middle Eastern and the country is more Middle Eastern than it is African. It's borders were arbitrarily drawn, and so it does not exactly fit anywhere conventionally, but for all intents and purposes the country is Middle Eastern. I am good friends with several Mauritanians who are Arab and speak Wolof and several other of the country's languages. It is more Middle Eastern than it is sub-Saharan African.

"Mauritania is as Middle Eastern as Algeria.

In other words, not at all in the Middle East?

It is, however, considered part of the Greater Middle East, which strikes me as odd, considering that it's at a more Westernly longitude than Great Britain."

Middle East is more about culture than it is about geography. There is a term for this in Arabic, Maghreb (West), which refers to the western Arabic speaking countries, along with the non-Arab populations; Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, and Mauritania.

None of this makes the Mauritanian transition relevant to the Eastern Arab countries though. Perhaps to some extent for the surrounding North African states, but it is a joke to think this will "catch on" in Egypt or Syria or Jordan. Mauritania is comparatively younger than these countries and it lacks the entrenched political despotism of the others. Democracy is more possible in the Maghreb than in the Arab East; the Maghreb is newer and Algeria and to a lesser extent Tunisia because of the colonial experience lack the clannishness and sectarianism of the others, and Mauritania and Morocco have very particular and separate histories of either independence going back centuries or of a society that has a comparatively fresh start at democracy. It is more often the case that political trends from the East spread West, because in the West people look East for many of their ideas. Whenever some idiot Egyptian talks about how Muslims should reject this or that, people listen. All the ideologies in North Africa in some way or another came from some Eastern Arab, be it Salafism, pan-Arabism or whatever. Eastern Arabs don't listen to Western Arabs. They usually can't even understand them.

Posted by: Nouri Lumendifi at March 13, 2007 03:06 PM

Glasnost wrote: "This is, however, possibly the first example I've seen where it's not Islamists leading the democratization charge..."

Really? I don't know how a reader of this site can forget about Lebanon.

Posted by: Nathan Hall at March 24, 2007 08:59 PM

Also, Glasnost, it seems far from clear to me that the Lebanese people generally have it in for Israelis.

Posted by: Nathan at March 24, 2007 09:01 PM