Minority Rule in the Middle East and Democratization

Martin Kramer has an interesting take on the prevalence of minority rule and the social changes wrought by democratization.

The usual Western assumption is that 'minority rule' is illegitimate and an inversion of natural order. This is, however, a very modern and European idea. Minority rule has a long tradition in the Middle East, where it has never had the same stigma that the modern West attaches to it.

In the most dynamic Islamic empires in history, Muslim minorities ruled over non-Muslim majorities. The early Arab empires ruled over largely non-Muslim populations, as did the Ottoman Empire, for as long as it held the Balkans. The tradition of this region was imperial rule by elites who spoke different languages and sometimes professed different religions than the people they ruled. The sovereignty and legitimacy of the government was not based on popular consent; it had its source in Islamic law.

The Middle East, even after its gradual conversion over the centuries to Islamic majority, allowed for the continued existence of autonomous minorities that enjoyed social and religious autonomy. The result is the social mosaic seen today -- a consequence of a centuries-long social contract.

...The message of democratization is that minority rule is a vestige of the past, one that should be replaced by full-blown democracy. This is precisely why democracy promotion is so feared in the Middle East. Americans see democratization as a process that will loosen the grip of tyrannical rule. Middle Easterners see it as a lever to shift power among different ethnic and sectarian groups, overturning social hierarchies established by a thousand years of internal struggles. Majority rule has frightening implications for conservative societies that fear chaos.

In particular, the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime has brought the Shiites to the fore of Arab politics. The democratizing messages of the United States would reverse a long-established sectarian social order in Iraq, and perhaps elsewhere. It is, however, by no means certain that empowered Shiites would prove to be tolerant of the pluralistic values that democracy celebrates. Were the principle of one man, one vote to spread, it could enhance the power of Shiites in Lebanon, Palestinians in Jordan, and Sunnis in Syria. It is not a foregone conclusion that eroding the positions of minorities in these countries would make for more open and tolerant regimes; it might have the opposite effect.