Arab League's Legitimacy: A Balance between Democratic Symbolism and Strategic Autocracy in Politics
The League of Arab States (LAS), representing 22 Arab countries, has been a significant player in regional politics. However, a recent study explores the complex relationship between the LAS's actions and the promotion of democracy. The study contends that the LAS's actions, particularly in countries like Bahrain and Yemen, where it aligned with the interests of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to suppress democratic movements, were more about maintaining regional stability than promoting democracy. This pattern of authoritarian collaboration, cloaked in pro-democracy rhetoric, has been a recurring theme in the LAS's engagement. In contrast, the LAS's actions in countries like Libya and Syria, presented as humanitarian and democratic, were found to be aimed at regime survival and regional stability, rather than genuine democratic change. The LAS has adopted tools and rhetoric aligned with democratic principles, such as election monitoring, human rights charters, and governance reforms. However, the study suggests that the LAS's engagement is driven less by normative commitments to democracy and more by the strategic interests of dominant member states, notably GCC monarchies. This dual approach was particularly evident during the Arab uprisings of 2011. While the LAS was proactive and interventionist in countries like Libya and Syria under the pretext of humanitarianism and democracy, it was passive or complicit in Bahrain and Yemen, aligning with GCC interests to suppress democratic movements. This trend continues in the LAS's engagement in the EU's Southern Neighbourhood, where a focus on regime survival and regional stability over genuine democratic change is evident. Egypt, a country with significant influence in the LAS, serves as a prime example of this dual approach. During the Arab uprisings, the Arab League, under Egyptian leadership, acted interventionist under the pretext of humanitarianism and democracy but was passive or complicit towards democratic movements while supporting the interests of Gulf Cooperation Council countries. In conclusion, while the LAS has made efforts to align with democratic principles, the study suggests that these efforts are often symbolic gestures rather than meaningful commitments to democracy. The LAS's actions are primarily driven by the strategic interests of dominant member states, notably GCC monarchies, rather than a genuine commitment to democratic values. This raises questions about the effectiveness of the LAS in promoting democracy in the Arab world.
Read also:
- United States tariffs pose a threat to India, necessitating the recruitment of adept negotiators or strategists, similar to those who had influenced Trump's decisions.
- Weekly happenings in the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag)
- Southwest region's most popular posts, accompanied by an inquiry:
- Discussion between Putin and Trump in Alaska could potentially overshadow Ukraine's concerns
