Towards Arab liberal governance: From the democracy of bread to the democracy of the vote

Abstract

In most theoretical treatments civil strife and domestic political conflict are commonly thought to be deconstructive and negative. As Gurr points out 'most Western students of conflict from Burke to Sorokin to Huntington have assumed that widespread violent conflict is intrinsically undesirable'.' Yet no messengers (from Christ to Muhammad), no leaders (from Bolivar to Ghandi), and no revolutionaries (from Lenin to Mao to Mandela) ushered in new orders and ideas without conflict. Whether viewed diachronically or synchronically, humankind's history is the history of conflict. However, domestic conflict is neither always negative (as Dixon and Moon have shown2) nor does it always have only short-term effects (as Bienen and Gersovitz have assumed3). There is ample historical evidence for this in the aforementioned cases. Against the backdrop of domestic conflict these historical figures effected positive and lasting changes. Hence the chief postulate of this essay: domestic political conflict, despite the 'inherent plausibility'4 of its harmfulness, presents opportunities for positive change with long-term effects. This position is tested using examples of Arab bread riots and the spillover effect of the Palestinian intifidiah (uprising). Support for this position is found in the context of the recent wave of Arab democratisations. Although generally guided and controlled, Arab political liberalisations (especially that of Sudan, Algeria and Jordan) have their roots in pressure from below. Elsewhere (as in Tunisia and Egypt), similar pressure helped consolidate, or at least place, political reform on the agenda of delegitimised ruling elites.