"Don't underestimate the power of petitions in the Arab world; they constitute a significant political protest and call for change, and are not taken lightly," writes Mark Wallace in his Gulf Reporter guise, referencing a post by Mahmood at Mahmood's Den:
Bahrain's opposition . . . is gathering signatures for a petition in support of reforming the country's constitution. It's an important story for Bahrain and indeed for the entire Gulf, as Bahrain is in the vanguard of political reform there.
Whereas a petition in America now has a well-defined place in political life (qualifying a candidate or legislative initiative for the ballot, for instance, or providing underemployed 20-something liberals with a way to kill a few afternoons), in the Gulf and across much of the Arab world a petition serves much the same purpose as it did when America's democracy itself was still developing: to make known the wishes of the people . . . Though in Bahrain such action helped lead to the current quasi-democracy at work there, during the wave of unrest of the mid-1990s, pro-democracy demonstrations were violently suppressed, resulting in 11 deaths. Hopefully a different route will be found this time.
Most importantly, notes Mark, "all of this is taking place without benefit of direct American pressure or intervention." Take that, you anti-Bush naysayers who say that Islam is incompatible with democracy.
And speaking of institutions that are incompatible with democracy, how about that European Union? In today's Telegraph Labor Euro-realist MP Frank Field writes that the forthcoming referendum on the EU constitution will allow Britons to decide what sort of Europe they want -- the first time they have been asked since Britain joined the EU:
The founders believed that the one sure way of slaying the demons of nationalism which had wreaked such a destructive influence was to form a federal Europe. The question the referendum will pose is not whether this was a wrong approach in the aftermath of the war but, rather, is it the right guide for a Europe in the 21st century?
Do we vote for an essentially 1950s backward-looking view, which the constitution offers, with yet more powers concentrated in Brussels? Or do we want that Europe develops together a different future where as much political and economic power as possible is exercised at a local level? That is the real choice, and as more countries offer their voters a referendum, my guess is that it is this future which the people -- as opposed to their political masters -- endorse."
[via EUROSOC]
Comments