Observations: Democracy assistance in Middle East and North Africa?

On the 23rd and 24th of February NIMD together with Hivos, the humanist institute for development cooperation, and the University of Amsterdam, organized an expert meeting on the possibilities of democratization in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Based upon a desk study by Isam Al Khafaji Ph.D., a workshop with experts from different parts of the world was organized in The Hague. Divided over two days, the discussion touched upon several crucial issues for this exploratory phase on democratization possibilities in the region.

With experts on Egypt, Yemen, Jordan and Bahrain, representing the academic world, NGO's and semi-governmental organizations, the range of expertise was broad, which led to interesting discussions. With every experts' specific focus area, the regions' social, historical and political diversity was widely endorsed. Nevertheless, common ground was found in the challenges that lie for establishing an environment where pluralism can flourish.

As NIMD focuses on democratization assistance mainly through political parties, one of the central questions was on the space for political parties to play a role in this process. However, defining the key players as such already proved to be a point for discussion. Would for instance religious groupings be considered a partner to talk to? Yes, of course, one has to include everyone, was one way of looking at it - broadly accepted. Yet, on the other side, what if the groupings as such do not have democratic principles?

Should there be rules of engagement when talking to non political party groupings? The suggestion arose to have specific conditions set, such as denouncement of violence, respect for the rule of law, inclusion of women and respect for people with another view. Only when groupings can ascribe to this, consider them to be your potential partner, was the more concrete advice. This would, however, exclude a large group of potential partners with whom to engage.

A distinction was then made between different levels of engagement. Perhaps a distinct set of criteria is less relevant for specific aspects of engagement. Yet, when engagement develops into cooperation and support, criteria might indeed become necessary. Defining rules for deeper engagement needs to be further elaborated upon.

Challenges lie also in the systems themselves. Getting to and remaining in power have become objectives in themselves. Party programs and communicating these during elections are aimed at people's desire for continuation of the status quo and their fear of losing basics like schools and hospitals. Interesting cases were brought forward where opposition is formed beyond ideological differences. If NIMD would in a later stage decide to follow through with further orientation further, these cases should be kept in mind.

Actors in civil society, often using new media in their desire for political change, also play a key role in opening up the MENA region for a more pluralist environment. Examples were given of young bloggers, who express their discontent about government online, sometimes followed by strikes or demonstrations. The youth, recommended some experts, should be a clear target group. Yet, warned one participant, the youth are not inherently progressive.

The different roles of the systems, the political parties, other groupings and civil society were heavily debated over the two days. NIMD is grateful for all the insights and will develop its desk study further, before considering the next step. We learnt that the region has its possibilities as well as its risks, and is more than interesting to study further.