| July
17, 2004 --
ACCORDING to plans announced by the Saudi government this
week, the kingdom will be holding its first ever elections
before the end of the year.
It is not yet clear whether or not women will be allowed to vote, let alone run, in these elections — which are limited to municipal councils in the urban areas only. Nevertheless, the fact that Saudi Arabia has allowed the very word "election" to enter its political vocabulary must be regarded as something of a revolution. Until just a couple of years ago, the Saudi ruling elite had no qualms about rejecting elections in any form as "totally un-Islamic." But much has changed since the United States, the principal sponsor of the status quo in the Middle East, decided to throw its weight behind democratic change in the only part of the world still largely unaffected by the wave of democracy unleashed after the fall of the Soviet empire. If all goes well, at least a dozen other countries, notably Afghanistan and Iraq, may also hold elections this year. The 70-plus nations holding elections in 2004 account for almost two-thirds of humanity. A generation ago, holding elections was something of an oddity that concerned less than a sixth of mankind. Holding elections was not always the mainstream method of testing the will of a people or bringing about political reform. Until the '70s, most supporters of change dreamed of a classical revolution. In many Third World countries, the main, if not the only, method of changing policies and governments was through military coup d'etat. At present fewer than a dozen countries, among them Libya and North Korea, still reject elections even under strict state control.
But is holding elections something more than a political ritual in most countries? Yes and no. In some countries, elections are "managed" in such a way as to confirm the ruling establishment in its position of power and privilege. But even this could be regarded as a compliment that vice pays to virtue. "Almost any election is better than no election at all," says T.S. Krishna Murthi, India's chief election commissioner, who has just supervised the biggest election in history. "Governments that arrange the elections to suit their interests emerge weaker, in the medium and long run, from such exercises. Somehow, people always know whether or not a government cheats at an election." I asked Murthi whether the latest Indian election, the largest in history in terms of the numbers of voters, was up to standard. Murthi divides the world into four categories when it comes to elections. The first consists of a handful of countries, notably Australia, New Zealand and Denmark that hold "the best and the cleanest" elections in the world. Then there are two dozen or so "well-established democracies," including some members of the European Union, the United States and Canada, whose elections are "clean and fair, though not perfect." Murthi puts India in this category. The third group consists of nations whose elections, though controversial at times, must be regarded as "of acceptable standard." Many new democracies of Eastern Europe, Latin America and Africa fall into this category. Finally, there are countries where elections are "arranged" to produce the results desired by the ruling establishment. One could, perhaps, add a fifth category: Countries where elections are held as a means of sorting out differences within the ruling establishment. In Iran, for example, those outside the ruling establishment are not allowed to stand for election. Nevertheless, Iranian elections are important because they allow the ruling establishment to sort out its own divisions without recourse to violence. But Murthi notes a steady movement toward better elections everywhere. More and more countries are holding elections that are more than a mere political ritual. In more than half of the 74 countries where elections have been held this year, the incumbents have been booted out of office or returned to power with reduced majorities. In some cases, the electorates have produced results that no one expected. Spain's voters threw out a successful right-wing government because they thought it had lied to them on the issue of terrorism. In India, another successful government was kicked out because many voters believed it had become arrogant and corrupt. Murthi also notes that some regimes opposed to elections on deep ideological grounds are beginning to change their position. China, for example, has just shown "some interest" in studying the Indian electoral system and is sending a team to New Delhi to study how the latest general election was organized. Holding elections, of course, does not necessarily translate into a government of the people. While there is no democracy without elections, there can be elections without democracy. The key question in all this is whether or not holding elections can be a means of avoiding violence, political conflict and civil war. Murthi's answer: "a cautious yes." To manage crises in 66 countries, the international community now has tens of thousands of troops deployed across the globe and is spending vast sums of money on peacekeeping missions. In almost every case, holding fair elections is the best way of ending the crisis. But how can we know whether or not any election is fair? One way is to bring in international observers, as in Algeria, for example, since 1996. Another is to let the United Nations run the whole show, as in post-independent East Timor. The best way, perhaps, of ensuring the fairness of elections, however, is to have them conducted by an international organization that can stand above partisan politics. Such an organization would supervise elections only by invitation from the host country. Its stamp of approval would give any election an added authority. An election is useful only if the loser accepts the results. And that can only happen if both winner and loser have confidence in the organization that conducts the elections. Within the next few months, the United Nations will be called upon to supervise two sensitive elections, one in Afghanistan, the other in Iraq. The success of those elections could boost demands for the creation of an international electoral commission that would be independent even of the U.N. and its notorious power games. E-mail: amirtaheri@ benadorassociates.com source |
