Political instability in the Middle East over the past decade has often brought to power smaller-scale political figures instead of strong but odious political leaders. They are not even leaders according to the understanding of that word in the region, but rather high-ranking officials who populate the rungs of power below. Or, using business parlance, they are managers.
Regime change is underway in Tunisia and Egypt, and the regimes in Yemen, Jordan and Algeria are at risk of being swept away in this tide of popular unrest. In no case is the opposition a monolithic force led by a recognized opposition leader.
Who will these uprisings bring to power? None of the main contenders have the necessary political weight or authority in their countries. This goes for both ElBaradei in Egypt and Rashid al-Ghannushi, a co-founder of the Tunisian Renaissance Party Hizb al-Nahdah, who has returned to Tunisia after a long political exile. At best, these men could head up caretaker governments.
History shows that a traditional Muslim society without a strong leader becomes a hotbed of conflict. The critics of autocratic regimes in the Middle East correctly predicted that the absence of democracy and the festering internal tensions in these countries were bound to result in a powerful uprising, like in Tunisia and Egypt. But can these critics explain the benefits of the new democracy in Iraq, which has not had a working government for nine months, or the system of checks and balances in place in Afghanistan, where the parliament elected last September still cannot get down to work?
Moreover, these new democratic governments have done nothing to improve the quality of their peoples' lives or to resolve social problems. Corruption is rampant in post-Saddam Iraq; it is now one of world's most corrupt countries. And Afghanistan has become the largest producer of opiates in the world since the Taliban was overthrown.
In other words, regime change in the Middle East in the information age only breeds new conflicts.
Lebanon, once a model of democracy in the region, is beset by serious problems. The fragmentation of Lebanese society and the influence of powerful external forces are increasing the risk of a new war.
What we are witnessing now in the 'Lebanization' of the Middle East. Lebanon is a small, though important, country. But what will happen if a heavyweight like Egypt follows the same path?
The free expression of popular will has divided Sudan in two. If Yemen goes the way of Tunisia and Egypt, the country may split into a north and south after two decades of living as a unified nation. Lebanon is also teetering on the edge of division, while Iraq has managed to remain unified because the U.S. State Department has pledged to prevent Iraqi Kurds from forming a Kosovo-like autonomous region, and also because the Kurds themselves and Iraq's neighbors fear the consequences of this scenario.
This is not to say that there is no alternative to authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. The changes underway in this vital region have been a long time coming, but there is a legitimate fear that outgoing political giants such as Egypt's Hosni Mubarak and Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh will be replaced with much weaker political managers, and that these managers will eventually fall to extremist leaders, who are currently biding their time.
Lebanon badly needs politicians like Rafik Hariri, who was assassinated in 2005. Hariri's son Saad has failed as the country's leader and Hezbollah leader Sheikh Nasrallah is waiting for the right moment to replace him.
The main challenger to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas is Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, and there is no doubt that Mahdi Akef, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, was among those who stoked the fire of public protest in Egypt.
I once attended an international forum at which Afghan President Hamid Karzai spoke about his experience as a hotel manager and the head of a company that supplied olive oil. He said that experience helped him to govern Afghanistan.
Countries ruled by authoritarian regimes, especially complex countries like Afghanistan, cannot be managed like a hotel or a food company. Governing them calls for a different set of approaches, which the classical Western electoral democracy cannot provide.
A suitable replacement needs to be found for authoritarian rulers whose time is past. But democratic elections, such as in Lebanon, could now bring even more repressive regimes to power, those with a much more aggressive internal and foreign policy. Influential voices outside the Middle East calling for elections in the region might want to think twice.
The views expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Political analyst Ilgar Velizade (Azerbaijan) for RIA Novosti
