Ikhwanweb :: The Muslim Brotherhood Official English Website

Fri1219 2014

Last update05:31 AM GMT

Back to Homepage
Font Size : 12 point 14 point 16 point 18 point
:: Issues > Activites
Understanding Electoral Defeat
Understanding Electoral Defeat
Watching the fascinating debate on the Right (bookmark The Next Right) in the wake of defeat highlights some of the things we know about how democracy functions – and how dictatorships don’t. One of the few things that will force a political party to adapt to changing circumstances and engage in long-overdue intro/retrospection is a drubbing at the ballot box.
Wednesday, November 12,2008 10:02
by Shadi Hamid Democracy Arsenal

Watching the fascinating debate on the Right (bookmark The Next Right) in the wake of defeat highlights some of the things we know about how democracy functions – and how dictatorships don’t. One of the few things that will force a political party to adapt to changing circumstances and engage in long-overdue intro/retrospection is a drubbing at the ballot box.   

We lost bad in 2002 and 2004, so we were forced to re-build our institutional and intellectual infrastructure, a process which continues today (let’s hope it continues with the same intensity as before). The Republicans lost last week, and I expect that, as a result, the ideas of Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, David Frum, and the young Turks of groups like The Next Right and Rebuild the Party, will gain increased currency in conservative ranks. This is a healthy process.

At the risk of stating the obvious, this is also why authoritarian regimes are quite bad at adapting to the preferences of their citizens. There is never any real incentive to engage in policy innovation, because there are no channels of direct electoral accountability. There is, however, a real incentive to not engage in policy innovation. You have a situation where the most qualified, uncorrupted political appointees (in, say, a country like Egypt) are most likely to be sacked the soonest, for the very reasons that they would have been successful if they had the good fortune of living in a democracy. Intelligent, well-meaning technocrats (or, worse, visionaries) serve little purpose in the confines of an authoritarian system lubricated by bribes, backstabbing, and patronage. These are the types that rock the boat.

A related problem has to do with opposition parties in authoritarian polities. In the absence of real elections, the opposition does not face any threat of “losing” an election. They will lose regardless of their performance, so “performing well” (for example, coming up with practical program for addressing unemployment) becomes less important than it otherwise would be. This is why the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has become a big, somewhat immobile elephant of an organization, capable of protecting its organizational prerogatives, but unable or unwilling to demonstrate any kind of bold innovation on a variety of key challenges facing the country. What they probably need is a real, rather than an artificial, electoral drubbing. 

Then we have a country like Jordan which more often than not holds relatively free and fair elections (I emphasize the word "relatively" here). That, of course, is good. What is less good is the fact that these elections don’t matter as much as they should, because parliament"s powers are quite limited, and because electoral laws make it impossible for the opposition to win anything close to a majority. Still, elections in Jordan do matter. But in the case of widespread election fraud, as we saw in 2007, the lessons of election losses become less clear. Did the Islamic Action Front do worse than expected because of failures on their part (which would necessitate introspection and revising their whole political approach), or did they lose because the government massively rigged the elections (which would necessitate more minor tactical revisions, as well as spending a large amount of time blaming and attacking the government)?

In an authoritarian country, it is difficult for opposition parties to engage in full-on political introspection, because it is always more likely their loss was due to government interference adn electoral fraud.


Posted in Activites  
Add Comment Send to Friend Print
Related Articles
More on Obama and the Middle East
Time to appoint a Middle East envoy
A reluctant Middle East
The Middle East’s Generation Facebook
2008: Who Would The Middle East Vote For?
What Bush Hath Wrought in the Middle East
New PPI Paper on US Policy toward the Middle East
Religion and Democracy in the Middle East: A New Generation of the Muslim Brotherhood
Contemporary Islamists in the Middle East
Analysis: Trouble in Middle East forecast
Islam and Peacemaking in the Middle East
The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
Engaging the Middle East
How Much Does the Middle East Matter?
Middle East still at war: the US is losing but the winners are unclear
Political Islam in the Middle East and North Africa
Democracy Promotion in the Middle East: Restoring Credibility
Bush Administration Middle East Policy: What Went Wrong?
Middle East: Egyptian Democrat Optimistic About Region’s Democratic Prospects
Four days that changed the Middle East
The End of the New Middle East
Democratization and Human Rights challenges in the Middle East
Missing in Action: The Democracy Agenda in the Middle East
Freedom House: Relative Improvement in Press Freedom In the Middle East
Why Middle East democracy is inevitable
Will U. S. Policy in Lebanon and the Middle East Ever Change?
Poll: Israel, US greatest threats to Middle East
The 1953 CIA Coup in Iran and the Roots of Middle East Terror
The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine: Trigger a Middle East Nuclear
Many similarities between Chicago and Middle East
The Middle East, Al Qaeda or Peace?
Gaza’s falling wall changes Middle East map for ever
Bush: Last stop on Middle East freedom tour
POMED Notes: Rethinking Democracy Promotion in Middle East at USIP
US Seen in Middle East Policy Retreat
Political Islam and The Future of Democracy in the Middle East
Bush in the Middle East
U.S. Presidents and the drive for Middle East peace
Bush’s visit to the Middle East: triumph of form over substance
Remember him? Bush begins Middle East tour