Illiberal democracies

This article by Musa al-Gharbi makes an interesting point about illiberal democracies and popular will in the Arab world. The statistics mentioned, however, are rather surprising to say the least:

Consider this: in one of the first scientific polls following the fall of Hosni Mubarak, a plurality of respondents (41.4%) identified Saudi Arabia as their ideal model of government to replace the regime (four times more votes than the runners-up, being the U.S., China, and Turkey, with 10% each).

The idea that popular uprisings in the Arab world will bring undemocratic forces to power is hardly new. But what is valuable in this analysis is that it argues for accepting it and dismantles the so-called "hijacked" revolutions argument. Usually when pundits make a similar point, they couch it in neo-colonial terms to prove that "Arabs are just not ready for democracy" and their popular wills can be easily circumvented. Needless to say that the pseudo-argument is fallacious and dangerous.

But for the author of this article, the essence of democracy is not only in putatively liberal institutions but respecting and accepting the will of the majority. He writes: "To continue to promote these liberal movements at the expense of the popular will and interest — this would be nothing short of cultural colonialism."


This really pertains to Tunisia and Western coverage of events in the country. The Western media aggressively criticize and even slander the Islamist movement, oblivious to the fact that they ascended to power as a result of the nation's first free and fair elections. Could it be said that this ubiquitous anti-Ennahdism is a form of cultural colonialism?