CSID 20th Annual Conference Report

Democracy and Good Governance in Muslim-Majority Countries: Lessons from the Past 20 Years

Thursday September 12, 2019

Copley Formal Lounge
Georgetown University
Washington, D.C.

            

 

The Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) hosted its 20^th annual conference at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. on Thursday September 12, 2019. The event was hosted by Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) and co-sponsored by the University of Denver’s Center for Middle East Studies and the Center for Global Policy. Four panels were convened on the following topics: “Democracy and Good Governance in Islamic Thought;” “Whither Egypt? Eight Years After the Arab Spring;” “Jamal Khashoggi, Human Rights, and the U.S.-Saudi Alliance;” and “Tunisia and the Enduring Hope of Democracy in the Arab World.”

 

The keynote speaker was Mr. Carl Gershman, President of the National Endowment for the Democracy.

 

 

The theme of this year’s conference, “Democracy and Good Governance in Muslim-Majority Countries:

Lessons from the Past 20 Years,” pushed participants and observers to reflect on the recent and revolutionary changes in these countries.

 

Representing a milestone in the success of one of the most active civil society organizations in the United States and now Tunisia, this year’s conference is itself timely evidence of ongoing progress. Occurring on the eve of historic presidential elections in Tunisia, one year after Mr. Jamal Khashoggi delivered the keynote address to CSID’s 19^th annual conference, and in the midst of renewed activism in Egypt, this year’s 20^th annual conference emphasized the importance of understanding how we got to where we are in order to respond to present challenges to democracy. 

 

Dr. Tamara Sonn, Director of the ACMCU and board member of CSID, opened the conference with brief introductory remarks outlining the day’s program.

Dr. Asma Afsaruddin, Chair of the Board of Directors of CSID, introduced the first panel, “Democracy and Good Governance in Islamic Thought,” reflecting on the significance of CSID’s 20^th annual conference. Dr. Afsaruddin said the twentieth year is a watershed moment for any organization, and the path for CSID has not been easy. Over the years its demise has been frequently predicted (and occasionally encouraged), but has nonetheless been kept at bay by its tireless members and advocates in the U.S. and beyond. Indeed, since its founding in 1999 in Washington, D.C., CSID has remained active throughout the coups and revolutions the Muslim-majority has experienced.

Therefore, Dr. Afsaruddin continued, we may look at CSID’s track record—in particular its efforts to create a modern, democratic discourse on Islam—for how to “get it right” following the setbacks that have stymied widespread progress after the initial wave of the Arab Spring. 

Dr. John Voll, Professor Emeritus at Georgetown University, was the first member of the panel to speak. Voll suggested expanding our view of recent developments to include the 1960s. In those days, Voll remembered, the question of can we even have democracy at all was still being asked, as well as the question of Islam’s compatibility with democracy. Today, however, the questions are more focused on what kind of democracy is best, and how to achieve it. Rached Ghannouchi, the figurehead of modern Islamic thought in Tunisia, played an important role in changing the questions being asked. CSID has kept this spirit alive through its support of inclusive, democratic, and modern interpretations of Islam.

Dr. Najib Ghadbian, Associate Professor at the University of Arkansas and board member of CSID followed Dr. Voll in panel presentations and thanked the audience members for their interest in CSID and its work. Ghadbian’s presentation considered the phenomena of “Post-Islamist” movements such as Ennahda in Tunisia, the Justice and Development Party in Turkey, and the Justice and Development Party in Morocco. These Post-Islamist movements are so-called for their reconfiguration of traditional Islamic politics. Ghadbian referred to the work of Iranian professor of sociology Asef Bayat in his contextualization and understanding of these movements.

Ghadbian also warned of the counterrevolutionary movements and systems that have arisen following the tidal wave of reformist political aspirations that characterized the Arab Spring. Despite these unprecedented achievements, ruling elites have found ways to maintain their power in society and still represent a major threat to democracy. The recent rise of populism and exclusionary politics in various parts of the world also threaten these nascent democratic trends, according to Ghadbian.

Dr. Ali Abootalebi, Associate Professor at the University of Wisconsin, presented next, breaking down as “loaded concepts” terms such as democracy, Islam, and justice. Echoing Voll’s tracing of the historical shift in the types of questions being asked, Abootalebi challenged the utility of outdated questions of democracy’s compatibility with Islam. The ongoing power of authoritarian regimes, in fact, are the key obstacle preventing an approach to the question of compatibility. 

Abootalebi’s area of expertise includes state-society relations, informing his admission of respect for Iranian religious figures and institutions whose calls for justice were essential for “dramatically expanding civil society.” Abootalebi concluded the presentation emphasizing the importance of political structures and institutions to informing the future of political Islam and religious institutions in Tunisia, for example. 

In the final presentation before panelists answered questions from the audience, Dr. H. A.  Hellyer, a senior associate fellow and scholar at the Royal United Services Institute in London and at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C, thanked the organizers of the conference and its attendees. 

Hellyer lamented the tragic circumstances that have continued to incite protests against governments and the powers that prevent protests from realizing material gains. Emerging from this dire picture, however, is the need for clear-headed analysis, which Hellyer surely provided to the conference, including a call to look at both sides and hold them accountable for what they do, not what we want them to strive for. Hellyer ended the presentation on a brighter note, mentioning the “courageous examples of human spirit” among demonstrations and protests that “recall the virtue of hope.”

Throughout the question and answer segment the panel’s scholars elaborated on the conference’s overarching theme and made several connections between presentations. Dr. Voll continued to question how history is structured, using the metal band Metallica as a temporal marker. Voll asked the audience if they had heard of the band and recalled a time when he asked a group of Muslim scholars the same question, with nearly everyone in the former and latter cases familiar with the band. Discarding traditional historical classifications such as post-Islamism and even post-post-Islamic, Voll suggested we may imagine a pre- and post-Metallica era, since such a breakdown points to a fundamental shift in awareness between generations. 

Responding to a question from the audience, Dr. Abootalebi urged the use of a wider lens with which to view recent upheavals in Muslim-majority countries. Abootalebi suggested a “trial and error” perspective toward the reshaping of political landscapes. This approach would characterize recent upheavals as simply one stage in an unfolding process. In the case of Tunisia, for example, this approach would emphasize continued efforts to improve democratic process, rather than preemptively applauding the nascent and shaky democracy.

Finally, Dr. Hellyer emphasized the importance of centering local voices in understanding recent and ongoing political developments. In this age of instant information and the seeming increase of disinformation, one must look closest at established local actors, as well as human rights organizations, whose role Hellyer also praised.

 

Before introducing the second panel, Dr. Sonn commented on the breakdowns of historical periods. Sonn related an example of a student who asked, “how did people in the time before Jesus know the year was 80 years before an event that had not happened yet?” The answer, of course, is the BCE/CE dating system emerged much later. What we can take from this anecdote and problematization of temporally anchoring movements is an awareness that such historical breakdowns are a human construction that at times blurs broader themes of continuity across time or preemptively terminates the reign of post-Islamic, instead rushing into existence the potential anachronism of post-post-Islamism. 

The second panel, “Whiter Egypt? Eight Years After the Arab Spring,” convened several experts with decades of experience to reflect on the accomplishments, setbacks, and potentialities of the reform movement in Egypt following the country’s unprecedented protests eight years ago. Egypt’s most recent protests, having taken place after the conference, will be closely watched for a possible rekindling of the reform movement.

Dr. Dalia Fahmy, Associate Professor of Political Science at Long Island University, opened the panel’s individual presentations with a quote from the 19^th century French historian Alexis de Tocqueville on what causes revolutions. Eight years after the revolution in Egypt that toppled the previous authoritarian regime, Fahmy’s presentation specifically and the panel as a whole reflected on how many of the factors that caused the revolution have persisted. One key takeaway from Fahmy’s insightful contributions was the warning of a free-falling Egyptian economy that has seen the poverty rate rise from 20% to 33% in the last six years. 

The second presenter, Dr. Nathan Brown, is Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University and director of its Middle East Studies Program. Brown, like Fahmy, began with a reference to a major political scientist, Juan Linz. Brown referenced Linz’s work on authoritarianism, a key concept when considering Egypt’s trajectory over the past eight years. Authoritarianism, Brown explained to the audience, is best characterized as a mentality, rather than a grand ideology. This may be seen in Egypt, for example, in the brittleness of the political system that is indeed set up well to control, but not necessarily to lead.

The third presenter, Dr. Michele Dunne, is the director of and a senior fellow in Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Middle East Program. Dunne’s presentation focused on the economic picture of Egypt, echoing some of Fahmy’s warnings. Dunne keenly pointed out to the audience a schizophrenic tale of two Egypts. In one picture, put forth by Bloomberg and Morgan Stanley, the rise of GDP, deals with the International Monetary Fund, and a decrease in inflation leads to a rosy picture of Egypt. In the other picture, however, as Fahmy earlier pointed out earlier, a substantial rise of Egyptians under poverty, a rise of military control over the economy, and the World Bank’s more pessimistic analysis together create a more troubling scene. 

In conclusion, Dunne mentioned the Egyptian military’s deadly response to protestors may be enough to prevent any demonstration of disappointment. In recent days, however, we have seen the Egyptian people’s defiant protests, although not without violent crackdowns. 

Dr. Peter Mandaville, the panel’s final presenter is a Professor of Government and Politics in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University. Mandaville began the presentation with dark humor, commenting that a speech on current manifestations of political Islam in Egypt—Mandaville’s area of expertise—could be very short, given the brutal crackdowns on the various movements and imprisonments of prominent leaders. Therefore, Mandaville spoke about other manifestations of political Islam in the region over the past eight years, such as the PJD in Morocco, a Muslim Brotherhood faction in Jordan, and Ennahda in Tunisia. Across this wide geographic space, Mandaville observed, are varying definitions of “Islamist,” with some like Rached Ghannouchi, co-founder of Ennahda, abandoning the title altogether.

During the question and answer part of the panel, the audience was fortunate to hear several members of the local Egyptian community pose their questions to the experts. In response to some of the questions, Dunne repeated the panel’s pessimistic readings of the situation in Egypt, using the phrases “collective trauma” and “feeling of failure and helplessness.” Mandaville concurred: “a looming crisis.” Dr. Sonn, the panel moderator, observed a “sense of impending doom” in which “something has to give.” Indeed, in light of the recent protests, perhaps something gave. 

In response to a question about how the 2020 United States Presidential elections might affect Egypt, Dunne pointed out Egyptians think their President al-Sisi depends on international support. Fahmy added former presidents Mubarak and Morsi were ousted once they became liabilities to the military. The day after President al-Sisi left for Egypt for a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, the recent protests began. At what point will the Egyptian military consider the current president a liability?

 

CSID is pleased to have welcomed Mr. Carl Gershman as the keynote speaker to the 20^th annual conference. Gershman is the President of the National Endowment of Democracy and has been personally and professionally connected with Dr. Masmoudi and CSID for over twenty years. When CSID first started out, Gershman remembered, NED provided office space for the organization at a time when it seemed like both organizations were in danger of shutting down. Then-Senator Judd Gregg would zero out the budget for NED and organizations like CSID in a political atmosphere that scoffed at the need for such projects, until the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Soon after, NED’s budget doubled, and has been working closely with CSID ever since. 

Following this brief introduction to NED and its relationship with CSID, Gershman reflected on the lessons learned over the last twenty years. The first lesson is that “people do not like corruption and unaccountable government.” This may seem obvious, but the consequence of this sentiment has significantly altered the landscape throughout the Middle East and North Africa, not only during the Arab Spring, but also recently against the Bashir regime in Sudan and against the Bouteflika regime in Algeria. Now, in Egypt, we are watching the unfolding of another manifestation of the refusal to live under a President al-Sisi’s corrupt and unaccountable government

Unfortunately, the last twenty years have also revealed “the resistance to democratic change,” the second lesson Gershman highlighted. In one of the most recent cases, Sudan, outside countries like Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Egypt, and Russia have “teamed up to try to block a democratic opening” there. Since the most recent protests have unfolded in Egypt, hundreds of protestors have been arrested as the military regime attempts to quash activism. With new protests expected today, September 27, the prospects for democratic change remain endangered.

Despite its supposed commitment to democracy, the United States and the West more broadly have allowed these brutal crackdowns on democratic change to go unchecked. This is Gershman’s third lesson: “The West is largely absent when it comes to backing democracy in the Middle East.” Indeed, President Trump’s praise of Egyptian President al-Sisi and their recent meeting at the UNGA in New York demonstrate the lack of U.S. support for democratic change, and even acceptance of violent counterrevolutionary reprisals.

This disengagement from the West, according to Gershman, “has encouraged Arab autocrats—particularly in Saudi Arabia—to adopt more aggressive foreign policies, which has in turn prompted them to develop an ideological language for sustaining that aggression.” The fourth lesson, then, is “the battle of ideas goes on in the world between democracy and authoritarianism—it did not end with the Cold War—and nowhere is it more acute than with respect to the battle within Islam.” To illustrate this point, Gershman spoke at length about the well-known Tunisian intellectual Sheykh Rached Ghannouchi’s words on this topic, notably last year to the ninth assembly of the World Movement for Democracy. “’The solution to extremism,’” Gershman said, quoting Ghannouchi, “’is more freedom (not less), more democracy (not less), more debate and dialogue, and more moderate religious teachings that confront this extremist ideology.’” CSID has taken this lesson and Ghannouchi’s words well. Over the past several years, CSID has implemented an imam training program to create dialogue between those with different ideas and promote pluralistic, moderate interpretations of Islam. 

Gershman concluded the keynote address with optimistic hope, calling attention to the presidential and legislative elections in Tunisia. Tunisia is one of the brightest sources for hope and optimism following the failures of other recent revolutionary movements to fully achieve their dreams, often tragically. Nevertheless, democracy continues to inspire hope, the principal lesson of the past twenty years, according to Gershman. Recent events in Iraq and Lebanon appear to confirm Gershman’s prescient analysis.

During the brief question and answer period Gershman offered important advice for how to move forward. In response to a question concerning the proper role of the U.S. abroad, such as the division of labor, Gershman emphasized the people on the ground must be supported. Furthermore, Gershman said, support of democracy must happen within, as in the case of CSID, rather than be promoted from without, bypassing local stakeholders and imposing measures inappropriate to the local context. One of the more elusive problems facing Tunisia and other countries is the region is the rampant unemployment, particularly among youth. This problem, Gershman stressed, must be solved to solidify hard-fought democratic progress.

Following Mr. Gershman’s keynote address, Dr. Hashemi introduced the next panel, “Jamal Khashoggi, Human Rights, and the U.S.-Saudi Alliance.” Mr. Khashoggi was the keynote speaker at last year’s 19^th annual CSID conference. This would turn out to be one of his final appearances before he was ruthlessly murdered inside the Saudi embassy in Istanbul. Before introducing the panelists, Dr. Hashemi asked the audience to join in a moment of silence out of respect for Mr. Khashoggi. 

The participants of the panel included the following distinguished speakers: Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director for the Middle East and North Africa Division of the Human Rights Watch; William D. Hartung, Director of the Arms & Security Project at the Center for International Policy; and Dr. Abdullah Alaoudh, Senior Fellow at the Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. 

In the time since Khashoggi’s harrowing murder, there has been a public rethinking of the U.S.-Saudi alliance, giving fragile hope to those who have long called for an end to U.S. aid to the gulf country responsible for the deaths of so many innocent civilians in Yemen. This public rethinking led Whitson to wonder when the broader Saudi leadership may consider Mohammad bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabic who allegedly ordered the killing of Khashoggi, a liability. Alaoudh, whose father is currently a political prisoner in Saudi Arabia, added to Whitson’s observation, saying the turning point was when the country’s leadership admitted to the murder. What happens in the coming months or years regarding Mohammad bin Salman remains to be seen. 

Perhaps in an effort to project an image of a reformed nation in contrast to the accusations of human rights abuses in Yemen, Saudi Arabia has implemented modest reforms. Hashemi asked the panel about these reforms, namely, allowing women to drive and travel without restrictions. Alaoudh shot down this apologetic notion, countering that the idea of male guardianship still exists, and many women activists are still calling for further, more substantive reforms.

One key component to understanding the U.S.-Saudi alliance is the arms trade. A common argument used to justify this longstanding relationship is the supposed economic benefit of the alliance. Hartung, however, deconstructed this argument, explaining the number of American jobs actually sustained by this alliance is often exaggerated. Let alone the morality of such arms dealing.

Hashemi then posed another question to the panel, asking what they would like to see different in the U.S.-Saudi relationship. Hartung advised an end to the sale of arms used in Yemen and treating Saudi Arabia like a normal ally, not a privileged partner for regime change. 

An audience member countered the panel’s criticism of the U.S.-Saudi alliance, suggesting hypocrisy in comparison with the panelists’ positions on Iran. Hartung cogently dispelled such a notion. The most notable difference between Saudi Arabia and Iran, Hartung argued, is that the U.S. is implicated in Saudi war crimes in Yemen—one of today’s most severe humanitarian crises—through its substantial arms trade. Moreover, Hartung continued, increasing U.S. pressure on Iran, particularly economic sanctions, actually exacerbates the human rights situation, making it more difficult for activists to operate.

The final panel of the day, titled “Tunisia and the Enduring Hope of Democracy in the Arab World,” focused on that country’s democratic successes in the years since protests there ignited the wave of Arab Spring protests seen throughout the region. Hashemi hosted this panel, which included Dr. Masmoudi, President of CSID, and Dr. Daniel Brumberg, Associate Professor in the Department of Government at Georgetown University. 

Masmoudi began with a few observations on the recent political developments in Tunisia following the Arab Spring. First, it is relatively easy to oppose, and to a certain extent even topple dictators, whereas building a democracy and government can be much more difficult. Second, domestically, vested interests in the old regime and counterrevolution have impeded what might have been more significant progress. Third, a simple majority is not enough. Luckily, Masmoudi noted, the military does not have as large role in Tunisia compared with other countries, where the military has stunted democratic progress. 

Masmoudi then went into detail about CSID’s work in Tunisia. The first initiative Masmoudi mentioned was CSID’s efforts to build coalitions and dialogue among parties and factions, particularly between hardline secularists and religious-minded groups. Second, CSID has attempted to build and strengthen a culture of citizenship. This initiative includes researching and asking questions central to democratic projects, such as the meaning of citizenship, rights, and their limits, and then educating the public about the findings. The third key project is the imam training project. This program attempts to modernize interpretations of Islam to fit with the changing circumstances in Tunisia. A key consideration of this program is how to build a civil-democratic state that respects and protects Islam. 

Brumberg, a professor at Georgetown University, traveled to Tunisia this summer with a class. Brumberg and a group of students visited several regions, including some quite far from the coastal capital city, Tunis. The trip provided a rewarding experience for students to see a country they may have only previously read about for an international affairs class and talk with people from a culture and history they may have never gotten to know otherwise. Brumberg recalled the inspiring excitement with which Tunisians eagerly discussed current affairs in their new democratic society. 

Since the elections were only a few short days before Tunisia’s presidential elections, the topic arose during this last panel. Masmoudi dismissed the notion that nostalgia for the old dictatorial regime remains widespread. 

To conclude the conference, Dr. Masmoudi thanked conference attendees and participants for their support of democracy in the Muslim-majority world. Masmoudi singled out the support of NED for CSID’s work in Tunisia and the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding and Georgetown University for hosting the 20^th annual conference. The event could not have come at a more important time, as elections in Tunisia continue to prove the success of democracy and new protests offer a glimmer of hope for democracy in Iraq and Lebanon.