Like any other region in the world, the Middle East requires a governance model that secures social and economic stability by ensuring access to healthcare, education, and basic living conditions. It also demands a robust economy that safeguards purchasing power and dignified livelihoods, rather than perpetuating cycles of ideological extremism and chronic crises.
By Dr. Nidal Shoukeir Professor of Strategic Communications and Governmental Relations
Nearly a quarter of a century has passed since the West—specifically the United States—attempted to replicate the model of “Western democracy” in the Middle East. These efforts became particularly evident after the events of September 11, 2001, when former U.S. President George W. Bush famously declared, “Either you are with us, or you are against us.”
In pursuit of this vision, the United States championed lofty slogans such as promoting democracy and human rights, supporting freedom of expression and political participation, and dismantling authoritarian regimes to replace them with elected governments.
Three Strategies… and Opposite Results
To achieve these goals, Washington adopted three main strategies, hoping to integrate Middle Eastern societies into a political, social, and economic system it deemed the ideal model of governance.
Military Intervention
The most prominent tool in this approach was military force. In 2001, the United States launched a large-scale military campaign against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, leading to its collapse and the installation of a Western-aligned government under the banner of “democracy.” In 2003, the U.S. repeated this strategy in Iraq, where it led a military invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime and replaced it with a new political system based on sectarian quotas—one that was nominally democratic.
Political Support for Uprisings
Beyond military intervention, politics played a crucial role, particularly during the administration of former U.S. President Barack Obama, which actively supported the so-called “Arab Spring.” This wave of uprisings began in Tunisia in late 2010, leading to the ousting of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali on January 14, 2011. It quickly spread to Egypt, where President Hosni Mubarak was deposed on February 11 of the same year. The movement extended further to Libya, culminating in the fall of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime following Western military intervention led by the U.S. and NATO.
Soft Power Influence
In addition to military and political interventions, the U.S. and its allies leveraged soft power—using economic and cultural influence to spread Western democratic values in the Middle East. This was manifested through support for civil society organizations, funding development and democracy programs, and exerting pressure via international institutions to promote governance reforms and human rights. Furthermore, Western media and digital platforms played a significant role in shaping public opinion and promoting narratives of democracy and freedom of expression.
Why Did the Attempt to Export Democracy to the Middle East Fail?
More than two decades later, it is evident that the attempt to replicate Western democracy in the Middle East has not achieved its intended objectives. Many of the countries that experienced military interventions or political backing for democratic transitions have either descended into chaos, reverted to authoritarian rule, or become battlegrounds for regional and international power struggles. Rather than fostering stability and democracy, these policies often exacerbated sectarian and ethnic divisions and provided fertile ground for extremist movements to exploit political vacuums and security breakdowns. This raises a fundamental question: Why did the project of exporting Western democracy to the Middle East fail? According to many experts, this failure can be attributed to three main factors:
Double Standards and Political Contradictions
In reality, democracy for the United States has often served as a political tool rather than a genuine reform project. While Washington promoted democracy in some nations, it simultaneously maintained strategic alliances with authoritarian regimes elsewhere—so long as those regimes served U.S. interests. As former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad aptly put it: “The West speaks of democracy, but in reality, it only supports regimes that align with its interests, regardless of the will of the people.”
Ignoring Cultural and Social Specificities
Democracy is not merely a system of governance but a way of life, as emphasized by American philosopher John Dewey. However, the U.S. attempted to impose its democratic model without considering the unique cultural and societal characteristics of Middle Eastern nations, leading to widespread rejection of the initiative. Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged this challenge, stating: “Democracy promotion is not just an American project—it must be pursued with respect for the cultures and specificities of different peoples.”
Western Democracy Is Not the Only Viable Model
The U.S. assumes that Western democracy is the optimal governance model, but this is not necessarily true for every society. History and culture play decisive roles in shaping governance systems, as noted by political theorist Samuel Huntington, author of The Clash of Civilizations. He observed: “Western democracy may not be the ideal model for every society; history and culture play a critical role in shaping political systems.”
Rethinking Strategy: A Shift from Engineering Democracy to Crisis Management?
Today, after numerous failed attempts, the West appears to be reassessing its approach to the Middle East. Military interventions have become more cautious, and there is a growing inclination toward crisis management rather than democracy engineering.
Many argue that the West’s approach to governance in the region should adopt a more pragmatic and fundamental perspective—one that prioritizes stability over ideological complexities.
Like any other region in the world, the Middle East requires a governance model that secures social and economic stability by ensuring access to healthcare, education, and basic living conditions. It also demands a robust economy that safeguards purchasing power and dignified livelihoods, rather than perpetuating cycles of ideological extremism and chronic crises.
The lingering question remains: Will the West learn from past mistakes and work toward genuine stability in the region, or will it continue repeating the same errors in the future?
(Associated Medias) – Tutti i diritti sono riservati