Mideast democracy
Much has been made of democratization in the Middle East and North Africa. Throughout that region, a wave of change is sweeping systems, which have largely remained entrenched for decades.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and most recently Iran have undertaken the basic process of democracy -- elections -- with varying degrees of political autonomy. Egypt will soon undergo its presidential election.
In other countries around the region, fundamental changes are also occurring. In Kuwait, for example, a woman has been appointed to sit in the Cabinet for the first time.
Though the winds of reform are yet to gush in, a light breeze is definitely stirring the stolid sands of the Middle East.
In passing from one phase to another, conditions have not always been conducive. In some cases, changes were imposed rather than embraced by the people in question. Be that as it may, it is change that is now inevitable.
While the domestic affairs -- specifically its political system -- remains the sovereign right of a respective country, we would dare to lecture, not hector, in advocating for a regime that respects the fundamental rights of its citizens.
For too long, the Middle East has been symbolic with stoic fiefdoms that have perpetuated an obsolete mind-set, which dangerously endorsed patronage and exclusivity based on rank, religion and gender.
To many outside the region, many parochial regimes have plainly engaged in discrimination toward their citizens.
By confusing religious text to justify their narrow social ideals, they gave the ignorant a misrepresented view of Islam.
Consequently, as the world's most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia, along with countries like Malaysia, is often left trying to highlight to the world the distinction between Islam and indigenous Arab culture, which remains predominant in Middle Eastern political systems.
Therefore, change that brings about greater political accountability and enshrines the indiscriminate rights of all peoples should be welcomed.
The outstanding outcome of change in the Middle East is not what type of leader is produced through democratic procedures. The global audience is often sent misguided messages with prudish media definitions of a particular regime -- conservative, traditionalist, Islamist, moderate, leftist, rightist, pro-this or anti-that.
What is more important is that the peoples of the region, and their leaders, begin to engage and have respect for a system that allows for accountability and respect.
It is not for us to judge the resulting outcome. "Natural law" suggests that only administrations that work for the good faith of their people will ultimately prevail.
Simplistic definitions do not help. It would be erroneous to lament the electoral victory of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a setback, as it would be to place the victory of anti-Syrian political forces in the Lebanese election as a victory for democratization.
In both cases the respective peoples of Iran and Lebanon have made their voices heard in a legitimate process.
As Indonesia has learned over the past seven years, democracy and its course do not make real the utopian dream. At the very least, however, such a system does present alternatives and outlets to pursue improvements in social conditions.
Unlike the views of certain major superpowers, we further believe that it is imperative for the tradition of democracy to be willingly embraced by the peoples of the Middle East. Imposing ideologies merely creates synthetic representations that are unsustainable.
Sometimes a genuine process with a mediocre outcome is better than a compassionless process that forces the desired result.
Democratic procedures in themselves are no guarantee of the benevolence of the resulting government. Israel probably has the most democratic system in the region, but its actions toward its neighbors -- specifically Palestine -- are from admirable.
It is probably the best example of a democracy persistently wronging its neighbors, and perhaps therein lies the problem of advocating democracy in the Middle East.