“Tunisia was in political limbo on Wednesday as President Moncef Marzouki suffered setbacks in his bid to replace Prime Minister Hamadi Jebali, who quit after failing in his plan to form a non-partisan cabinet,” AFP reports.

Talks between Marzouki and Rached Ghannouchi, head of Islamist Ennahda [also known as Nahda or Renaissance] party, ended inconclusively, dashing hopes of a soon end to Tunisia’s deepest political crisis since the revolt that ousted Zine El Abidine Ben Ali two years ago.

“For the moment we have no name,” said Ghannouchi, whose party holds the majority in the National Constituent Assembly, after his meeting with Marzouki. He added that he was in “talks with Jebali” to continue in his post.

Jebali stressed when he resigned he would not sign on again as prime minister under “any initiative that does not fix a date for new elections. What about the constitution? What about elections?”

“We need a coalition government with several political parties and technocrats,” Ennahda party chief Ghannouchi told reporters.

Tunisian citizens are reportedly ’furious’ at the Islamist leader’s sectarian stance.

The head of the country’s largest labour union body backed Jabali’s call for an apolitical government to organize new elections.

Those parties rejecting a government of technocrats are unaware of the seriousness of the situation and failing to place national interest above sectarian or partisan considerations, said Houssine Abassi (left), Secretary-General of the Tunisian General Labour Union (UGTT), the country’s largest civil society group.

Tunisia has been in political turmoil since the murder of secular politician Chokri Belaid outside his Tunis home on February 6 sparked widespread protests and a general strike.

“Jebali’s plans had been bitterly opposed by Ennahda hardliners, represented by Ghannouchi, who refused to give up key portfolios and insist on Ennahda’s electoral legitimacy,” AFP reports:

Ahmed Nejib Chebbi, a prominent figure in the Republican party, expressed support for Jebali on Wednesday. “We support him because he has gained credibility,” he said.

Samir Bettaieb, leader of Al-Massar party, said he had “confidence in Hamadi Jebali due to the role he played after Chokri Belaid’s assassination.”

A section of the Tunisia media also showered praise on Jebali. Le Temps said Jebali “has given everyone a wonderful lesson in courage, consistency and commitment for the best interests of the nation”.

A Nahda spokesman reiterated the party line that a political coalition would enjoy greater legitimacy than a government of technocrats.

“Politicians who fought for a long time and worked hard for the revolution are also qualified to be part of the government,” said Najib Gharbi. “I guess Jebali doesn’t agree anymore.”

Radwan Masmoudi, who leads the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy and is close to the Renaissance Party’s leaders, said an agreement to form a new government was “probably close” but faced several challenges. Among them, he said, is the Islamist group’s insistence on retaining key government portfolios, including the Interior Ministry. Opposition parties have singled out that ministry as sorely in need of reform.

The speech left Mr. Jebali’s position in his party unclear. Mr. Masmoudi said that while the speech had been “statesmanlike,” the prime minister was in danger of losing his base. “He can’t be a leader if he doesn’t have a political party behind him,” he said.

But Noomane Fehri, a member of Tunisia’s constituent assembly who belongs to a liberal opposition party, said he had found the speech refreshing.

“He did what he said he would do,” Mr. Fehri said. “He continued to be a man you can trust.”

Gharbi’s claim that Nahda “fought for a long time and worked hard for the revolution” is disputed by independent analysts.

“It bears noting that Islamists were largely absent from the 2010-2011 demonstrations that led to the ouster of former president Ben Ali; after initially spontaneous protests, it was the union leadership that added crucial muscle to the nonviolent campaign,” write Middle East specialists Ahmed Charai and Joseph Braude.

The U.S. should take a time-out from supporting Egypt’s democrats, a former envoy suggested yesterday, suggesting that Washington was courting unpopularity and damaging diplomatic relations with Cairo.

But a forum of eminent politicians, diplomats and democracy practitioners suggests otherwise.

“As an instrument of public diplomacy — winning international support by inspiring emulation — instruction in the arts of democracy is invaluable,” says Philip Seib, director of the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy.

“This is clearly the case in today’s Middle East, where dictators have fallen but the ‘What next?’ question looms large.”

This week’s forum at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library to mark the 30th anniversary the former president’s Westminster Address demonstrated that democracy assistance is not only a diplomatic asset, but a reflection of a country’s moral purpose and commitment.   

“Today, the United States sometimes seems uncertain about what it stands for and what example it wants to set, particularly for those emerging from many years of grinding repression. Reagan’s Westminster speech is instructive,” Seib writes on Huffington Post:

We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings … The objective I propose is quite simple to state: to foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means.

The instrument crafted to foster that infrastructure was the National Endowment for Democracy which co-sponsored the meeting with the Pacific Council on International Policy. Reflecting the NED’s bipartisan nature, former Secretaries of State George Shultz (left) and Madeleine Albright stressed that its mission remains as vital as ever even if the challenges differ radically from those of the Cold War.

At a time when “the world is awash in change, as almost never before,” the NED’s mission “was never more important than it is right now,” said Shultz.

With new communications technologies, formerly closed societies and autocratic regimes have “opened up in an unprecedented way,” he said. “The powers-at-be used to have a monopoly on information and the ability to organize. That’s not true anymore.”

The Chinese government’s attempt to stifle the flow of information on the anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre involved censoring such words as June 4, 1989, 23 years, today, and tomorrow, said Xiao Qiang, founder and Editor-in-Chief of China Digital Times.

Nevertheless, China’s people “know today what’s happened in the Middle East, Burma and Taiwan,” he said. “It’s now impossible to govern by control and fear.”

Thirty years’ experience of advancing democracy has yielded valuable lessons, said Albright (right), not least the realization that democratic transitions are fragile and vulnerable to regression, especially when governments fail to address citizens’ materials needs as well as their constitutional rights.

“Democracy is not linear,” she said. “There are ups and downs, often based on whether or not people feel their government is delivering” better services, living standards and quality of life.

“People want to vote but they also want to eat.”

Alejandro Toledo, the former President of Peru, affirmed the importance of the social agenda.

“How do we create a democracy that delivers measurable results?” he asked.

Assistance groups can help provide knowledge and skills of the “nuts and bolts of democracy,” said Albright, but democracy is necessarily a home-grown affair.

Democrats in authoritarian states benefitted from foreign funding and advice, but democracy assistance groups do not engage in political engineering.

The color revolutions demonstrate that local democratic actors need to take responsibility for crafting democratic transitions, said  Myroslava Gongadze.

“After the Orange Revolution, civil society and the democratic leadership made many mistakes,” she said. With “no plan and no program” for forging a democratic Ukraine, the country’s divided democrats were no witnessing a revived authoritarianism, said Gongadze, a journalist for Voice of America and widow of slain investigative reporter Georhiy Gongadze.

Perhaps democracy assistance groups need to provide more strategic planning? As Shultz told the conference, “people don’t know what to do once you win.”

Tunisia’s people “are looking for a civil state that respects religious values, not a theocracy,” said Radwan Masmoudi, founder and president of the Center of the Study of Islam and Democracy. But international assistance, including economic aid, is imperative if the transition is to succeed.

While the recession in the West has stretched resources and placed real constraints on budgets, the advanced economies are still able to use development aid budgets as a source of leverage for democratic change, said Birtukan Midekssa, a former federal judge and leader of Ethiopia’s pro-democracy opposition movement.

Indeed, the international community “has more leverage to promote democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa than in any other region,” she argued.

Sentenced to life in prison in 2005 after her party won an unprecedented number of seats in parliamentary elections, she was released in 2007 and is currently a Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow.

“Today we live in a world far different from that which Reagan surveyed in 1982, but the principles he articulated remain valid. His observation about the weaknesses of dictatorships is as applicable to today’s Middle East as it was to the Cold War’s Eastern Europe,” Seib suggests:

Any system is inherently unstable that has no peaceful means to legitimize its leaders. In such cases, the very repressiveness of the state ultimately drives people to resist it, if necessary, by force.

“I don’t think I’ve heard a clearer discussion of struggles for freedom, and building democratic institutions than this event,” NED president Carl Gershman said at the close of the 30^th anniversary forum.

It doesn’t seem that democracy assistance practitioners are likely to heed those calls for a time-out.  

Aryeh Neier was typical of many human rights activists in being deeply skeptical of Ronald Reagan’s commitment to promoting democracy and human rights, and critical of a bi-partisan proposal – co-sponsored by Democratic Congressman Dante Fascell – to establish what became the National Endowment for Democracy.

But the initiative has had “a significant impact,” the former executive director of Human Rights Watch  concedes, while the NED’s institutes have “played a significant role in efforts to promote electoral democracy worldwide during the past three decades,” he writes in his new book, The International Human Rights Movement: A History

The new approach to promoting democracy had its “most profound” impact in Reagan’s second term, with breakthroughs in Chile, Haiti and the Philippines, writes Neier (right), who retires this year as president of the Open Society Foundations.

In a marked departure from earlier covert efforts to support U.S. allies, he notes, NED “provides funds openly to organizations” promoting democracy and human rights, including support for efforts that “probably would not have qualified for the kind of aid” given by Cold War-driven covert agencies.

Activists and analysts gather in California tomorrow to mark the 30th anniversary of Reagan’s Westminster Address,* the speech that effectively launched the NED.

But, as Neier observes, efforts to advance democracy today confront a different and arguably more complicated set of challenges and problems than during the Cold War, including a more adaptive and assertive form of developmental authoritarianism.

“China is willing to throw its weight around in ways that do damage to human rights,” he notes.

“China will let a country like Angola or Sudan know that if they sell their oil to China, then China isn’t going to bother them with strictures about human rights or corruption or transparency,” Neier observes.

The Communist regime “makes its silence on those issues a competitive advantage when dealing with those governments.”

Beijing  is not only promoting its own soft power, but actively trying to stifle freedom of expression abroad.

“China is the first country that I am aware of that engages in active campaigns against those who try to promote human rights and tries to suggest that it will penalise governments or others who are critical of its human rights practices,” Neier says.

While Reagan and other subsequent presidents of both parties have actively promoted democracy, the democratic West appears to have lost the confidence, commitment or courage to do so . “One of the most serious problems in the human rights field today is that the cause does not have champions among governments or among intergovernmental bodies,” says Neier. “Europe is focused inwards, the US is not eager to provide leadership internationally on human rights, and intergovernmental bodies like the UN, the EU and the African Union are not willing to provide such leadership.”

While the “non-governmental human rights movement is continuing to grow in size and significance” and the Arab awakening confirms that “there is something contagious about demands for increased political freedom,” the prosecution of pro-democracy NGOs in Egypt demonstrates that “there has been a backlash,” Neier tells the Irish Times.

“[The OSF] has a presence in Egypt and we have had to operate with a great deal of care. We don’t go around claiming that we engineered what took place, because we didn’t,” he says. “We have supported over the years various groups that are concerned with human rights broadly, with women’s rights, legal process and assistance for the poor and so forth.”

“There were some organizations that always made clear to us that they didn’t want to obtain foreign funding because they thought this would undermine their legitimacy. It’s something we encounter in all parts of the world.”

*Democracy in the World After Thirty Years, marking the 30th Anniversary of President Ronald Reagan’s Westminster Address, Ronald Reagan Presidential Library (watch here).

June 5, 2012 – 9:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. (PST – 12:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. EST).

_____________________________________________

Agenda

9:15-9:30: Welcome

John Heubusch, Executive Director, The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation

Jerrold Green, President and CEO, Pacific Council on International Policy

9:30-10:30: Democracy Assistance since the Westminster Address

Carl Gershman, President, National Endowment for Democracy, Moderator 

Hon. Madeleine Albright, Chair, National Democratic Institute

Hon. Alejandro Toledo, former President of Peru 

Hon. Audronius Azubalis, Foreign Minister, Republic of Lithuania

10:45-Noon: The Struggle Today: From a Whisper to a Roar
Larry Diamond, Director, Center for Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (Stanford University), Moderator

Excerpt from documentary film, “From a Whisper to a Roar”

Radwan Masmoudi, Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, Tunisia

Birtukan Midekssa, former Federal Judge and Opposition Leader, Ethiopia

Myroslava Gongadze, Voice of America

Xiao Qiang, Editor-in-Chief, China Digital Times

12:15-2:00: Luncheon in the Air Force One Pavilion: Democracy After 30 Years

NED Chairman Hon. Richard Gephardt, Moderator

Introduction: Ambassador Robert H. Tuttle

Address: Hon. George P. Shultz

Concluding Remarks & Tribute to the Hon. Christopher Cox: NED President Carl Gershman

About the Speakers

John Heubusch has served as Executive Director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation since 2009. Prior to that, he held positions at Avalon Capital Group, Inc., Gateway, Inc., the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and the American Red Cross. While at Avalon Capital, he also served as President of the Waitt Family Foundation, where he oversaw the organization’s charitable programs. Before entering the private sector, he served in both the Department of Labor and on Capitol Hill.

Jerrold Green is President and CEO of the Pacific Council on International Policy. He also serves as a research professor of communication and business, and clinical management and organization at the University of Southern California at Annenberg. Prior to these positions, he served in various leadership positions at the RAND Corporation. Before joining RAND, Green was director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and professor of political science and sociology at the University of Arizona.

Carl Gershman has served as President of the National Endowment for Democracy since 1984. In addition to presiding over the Endowment’s international grants program, he has overseen the creation of the quarterly Journal of Democracy, the International Forum for Democratic Studies, the Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellows Program, the World Movement for Democracy, and the Center for International Media Assistance. Before NED’s founding, he was Senior Counselor to the United States Representative to the United Nations, Resident Scholar at Freedom House, and Executive Director of Social Democrats, USA.

Hon. Madeleine K. Albright was named by President Clinton in 1997 as the 64th U.S. Secretary of State, and the first woman to hold that position, making her, at that time, the highest ranking woman in the history of the U.S. government. From 1993 to 1997, Dr. Albright served as the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations and was a member of the President’s Cabinet. She currently is Chair of Albright Stonebridge Group, a global strategy firm, and Chair of Albright Capital Management LLC, an investment advisory firm focused on emerging markets. She is a Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. Dr. Albright chairs both the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and the Pew Global Attitudes Project. On May 29, 2012, she was presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Obama, in recognition of her contributions to international peace and democracy.

Hon. Alejandro Toledo served as President of Peru from 2001-2006. Rising from a childhood of extreme poverty, Toledo earned a PhD from Stanford University and became the first person of indigenous descent to be democratically elected to lead Peru. He first appeared on the international political scene in 1996 when he formed and led a broad democratic coalition in the streets of Peru to bring down the autocratic regime of Alberto Fujimori. Since leaving office, he has held posts at Stanford University, and is currently a non-resident scholar at the Brookings Institution. He is also the Founder and President of the Global Center for Development and Democracy (GCDD), which studies the interrelationship between poverty, inequality, and the future of democratic governance.

Larry Diamond is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, where he directs the Center for Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law. Diamond also serves as the Peter E. Haas Faculty Co-Director of the Haas Center for Public Service at Stanford. He is the founding co-editor of the Journal of Democracy and also serves as Senior Consultant at the International Forum for Democratic Studies of the National Endowment for Democracy. Prior to joining Stanford University, Diamond served as a senior advisor on governance to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad and as a consultant to the U.S. Agency for International development. He has edited or co-edited over 30 books on democracy.

Radwan Masmoudi is the Founder and President of the Center of the Study of Islam & Democracy (CSID), a Washington-based nonprofit think tank dedicated to promoting freedom, democracy, and good governance in the Arab and Muslim worlds, as well as improving relations between the United States and the Muslim World. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of the Center’s quarterly publication, Muslim Democrat, and a member of the board of directors of a number of international groups, including the Steering Committee of the World Movement for Democracy.

Birtukan Midekssa is a former federal judge and leader of the pro-democracy opposition movement in Ethiopia. She was sentenced to life in prison in 2005 after her party won an unprecedented number of seats in parliamentary elections. She was later released in 2007. Before entering politics, she was a defense attorney and federal judge. From October 2011 through May 2012, she was a Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy.

Myroslava Gongadze is a human rights activist, journalist and television anchor for the Voice of America’s Ukrainian service. She has won numerous awards for her accomplishments as a journalist, including her reporting on the eve of the 2004 Orange Revolution, and as a champion of democracy and independent media. The widow of slain investigative reporter Georhiy Gongadze, she fled Ukraine in 2001, and has labored tirelessly to bring her husband’s case to justice. She won a landmark negligence ruling against the Ukrainian government from the European Court of Human Rights in November 2005.

Xiao Qiang is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of China Digital Times, an interactive news website in China. Previously, he served as the Executive Director of Human Rights in China from 1991 to 2002. He launched China Digital Times in 2003 to explore ways to apply social media technologies to aggregate, interpret, and contextualize news regarding China. His current research focuses on measuring state censorship and control of the internet and mapping online political discourse.

Hon. Richard Gephardt serves as the President and CEO of Gephardt Government Affairs, a firm he founded after leaving the U.S. House of Representatives in 2004. Gephardt Government Affairs provides strategic advice to clients on issues before the House, Senate, and Executive Branch in the federal government. Congressman Gephardt represented Missouri’s 3rd Congressional District from 1976 to 2004, during which time he held several leadership positions, including House Democratic Leader, House Majority Leader, and Minority Leader. He has served as Chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy since 2009.

Amb. Robert H. Tuttle held the post of United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom from 2005 through 2009. During the Reagan administration, he served as Assistant to the President and the Director of Presidential Personnel. Ambassador Tuttle has served on the boards of such prominent civic organizations as the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation, the USC Annenberg School for Communications, and the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art, where he was Chairman from 2001 to 2004. He currently serves as Co-Chair of the Pacific Council on International Policy and as a member of the Board of Directors of the National Endowment for Democracy.

Hon. George P. Shultz is the Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He served as the sixtieth U.S. Secretary of State from 1982 until 1989. He also served in government as Secretary of Labor, Secretary of the Treasury, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and as president of Ronald Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board. In the private sector, Shultz was president and director of the Bechtel Group. He served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1942-1945. The author of over a dozen books on international relations and economic policy, he has held academic posts at both Stanford and MIT. Secretary Shultz received the nation’s highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, on January 19, 1989, the last day of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

“Tunisians did not overthrow a secular dictatorship to replace it with a religious or theocratic dictatorship,” writes Radwan Masmoudi (left). The challenge lies in demonstrating that the new Tunisia can reconcile Islamic values and principles with modernity, freedom and democracy.

Tunis – The 23 October elections in Tunisia were as important and as historic as the revolution itself. I saw with my own eyes masses of people crying from joy and pride as they cast their votes in the decision on who would represent them in the National Constituent Assembly (NCA), feeling the dignity of participating in an election for the first time in their lives as truly free citizens. A free nation was being born anew.

Tunisians are working on negotiating a relationship between religion and politics, an issue which has only become more pressing as extremists on both sides, secularists and Islamists, have been using their new-found democratic freedoms to push for more radical views. However, compromise and prioritising the nation’s interests are essential ingredients for a successful transition to democracy, and must take precedent over partisan bickering.

Not surprisingly, Al Nahda, an Islamic party with a focus on democracy and human rights, won a plurality with 41 per cent of the vote and 89 seats in the assembly. Four secular parties, that do not advocate a role for religion in government, fared well: the Congress for the Republic, Al-Aridha As-Shaabiya, Attakatol and the Progressive Democratic Party (PDP).

Tunisians do not see a contradiction between Islam and democracy, or Islam and modernity, and do not want to choose between them. They want to be both Muslim and modern, and Al Nahda provided them with a ticket promising just that.

In an interview with Reuters, published on 4 November 2011, Rached Ghannouchi, president and co-founder of Al Nahda, said: “We are against trying to impose a particular way of life. […]All the parties have agreed to keep the first article of the current constitution which says Tunisia’s language is Arabic and its religion is Islam. This is just a description of reality; it doesn’t have any legal implications. There will be no other references to religion in the constitution. We want to provide freedom for the whole country.”

This is exactly what the majority of Tunisians wanted to hear.

Tunisians did not overthrow a secular dictatorship to replace it with a religious or theocratic dictatorship. They do not want the state to interfere with or enforce religious practices. Religion should be a personal matter and choice, and the state should respect and protect the individual freedoms and liberties of all citizens.

So can Al Nahda succeed in leading Tunisia to real, genuine and lasting democracy? If the party can emulate the Turkish model in Tunisia, as it has promised to do, I believe that they will be successful and their popularity will increase.

Although the new constitution will not stipulate that Tunisia is a secular state, as the topic of secularity is deeply divisive in Tunisia and across the Arab world, it is equally clear that Tunisians want a civil and democratic state.

What the new constitution of Tunisia should do is enshrine the principles of human rights and religious freedom, justice and equality before the law, as well as women’s and minorities’ rights. Just like Turkey has been able to merge Islamic and democratic values and build a successful modern state in the Muslim world, so too can Tunisia lead the Arab world towards reconciling Islamic values and principles with modernity, freedom and democracy.

* Radwan A. Masmoudi is President of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy. This is an extract of an article first published by the Common Ground News Service and is reproduced with permission. CSID is a grantee of the National Endowment for Democracy, the Washington-based democracy assistance group.

November 13, 2011. Cogunluk (Majority).  Cogunluk (Majority) is the remarkable story of a young man’s journey navigating the fault lines of family relationships, social norms, love, and the expectations of “the majority”. The film daringly approaches the most critical topics in contemporary Turkish society while capturing the universal struggle for belonging and acceptance. Cogunluk won three of Turkey’s prestigious 2010 Golden Orange awards for Best Film, Best Director, and Best Actor in addition to the sought-after Lion of the Future Award for debut films at the 2010 Venice International Film Festival.

By attending the event you are supporting HasNa’s unique programming which promotes cross-cultural understanding and economic empowerment.  HasNa’s programs in Turkey bring together individuals from different backgrounds to offer a platform for them to interact and acquire useful technical, communication, and collaboration skills.

HasNa invites you to the special Washington DC premiere of the international award-winning film Cogunluk (Majority) on November 13 at 8:00 PM at the Avalon Theater, Connecticut Ave., Washington, DC. RSVP here.

November 14-15, 2001. Ideological Storms: Intellectuals and the Totalitarian Temptation. Conference Agenda includes: Day 1 – November 14, 2011 The Wilson Center. 9:00 AM ? 10:10 AM Welcome Remarks. Christian Ostermann (Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars). Keynote address: Mark Lilla (Columbia University), Political Innocence and Its Modes. 10:30 AM ? 12:10 PM Avatars of Communism in Europe Discussant: Cristina Vatulescu (New York University); Jeffrey Herf (University of Maryland), The Persistence and Passing of an Illusion: Intellectuals and Communism in East Germany and in the West German New Left. Stanislao G. Pugliese (Hofstra University), Resisting the Totalitarian Temptation: Carlo Rosselli and Ignazio Silone. Michael Scammell (Columbia University), Arthur Koestler and the Temptations of Utopianism. Jeffrey Isaac (University of Indiana in Bloomington), What Albert Camus Learned About Political Violence. Full details here.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011. Belarus: The Ongoing Crackdown and Forces for Change. Nearly one year after the brutal post-December 19, 2010, election crackdown, the human rights picture in Belarus remains bleak. Brave and committed individuals who attempt to promote a democratic future for Belarus continue to be crushed by the dictatorial Lukashenka regime. Civil society continues to be under assault, with NGOs facing ever greater constraints, and freedoms of assembly and expression are severely curtailed. Yet the ongoing economic turmoil has produced growing disaffection, as manifested in Lukashenka’s plummeting popular support, and a changing domestic and international environment. The hearing will focus on the extent and impact of the crackdown on the lives of its victims and on the larger society, and what more can be done by the U.S. and our European partners to promote democratic change in Belarus.

The following witnesses are scheduled to testify: Ales Mikhalevich, Prominent Belarusian pro-democracy activist and former presidential candidate arrested and tortured in the post-December 2010 election crackdown; Rodger Potocki, Senior Director Europe, National Endowment for Democracy; Susan Corke, Director for Eurasia, Freedom House. 10:30 am, Room 210 Cannon House Office Building, Capitol Hill, Washington, DC.

November 15, 2011. Assessing Violence: The Disengagement of Indonesian Jihadis. Speaker: Julie Chernov Hwang, Visiting Fellow, East-West Center in Washington, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Goucher College, author of Peaceful Islamist Mobilization in the Muslim World: What Went Right (2009).

The scope and scale of the October 2002 Bali bombing by Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) caused some to hypothesize that Southeast Asia was fast becoming Al Qaeda’s ‘second front.’ While the threat posed by JI, its splinters, and its spinoffs to Indonesia’s security has declined since the early 2000s, it is important to understand the pathways to radicalization and disengagement taking place within the Indonesian Salafi-Jihadi community. Dr. Chernov Hwang will highlight the factors motivating individual jihadis to disengage from violence; how new members are being radicalized; and the implications of these findings for our understanding of radical Islamism and counter-terrorism in Indonesia. November 15, 10:30 A.M. – 12:00 P.M. East-West Center in Washington, 1819 L Street, NW, Washington, DC, Sixth Floor Conference Room. This event is free and open to the public. RSVP here. Kindly send your reply by November 14

November 15, 2011. Egypt’s Parliamentary Elections: Expectations and Challenges. The Middle East Program of the Woodrow Wilson Center, the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, and the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) present Egypt’s Parliamentary Elections: Expectations and Challenges with Ibrahim Houdaiby, Freelance journalist and researcher (via Skype from Cairo); Magdy Samaan, Freelance journalist and a 2011 MENA Democracy Fellow, World Affairs Institute, Michele Dunne, Director, Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, Atlantic Council.

With the electoral process beginning November 28, Egypt’s parliamentary elections will be a critical test for Egypt’s fragile transition and will be watched closely throughout the region and the world. In the pre-election environment, incidents of media censorship, politically-motivated arrests, restrictions on civil society activity, and ongoing military trials of civilians have all been cause for concern. The field of political contenders has been unclear and questions remain about the voting process itself. The panelists will explore the many uncertainties going into the parliamentary elections. 9:00am — 11:00am, Location: 6th Floor, Woodrow Wilson Center. Directions to the Wilson Center

November 15, 2011. Independent Media in East Africa – Democratic Pillar in Peril? New challenges to independent media are emerging in East Africa. Recently passed anti-terrorism and information laws allow governments to harass and imprison journalists with impunity. Under these new laws, six journalists have been arrested in Ethiopia since June 2011, and Somali journalists are facing tremendous threats covering conflict and famine in their country. How do local media react when their fellow journalists come under attack? How can an independent press play its crucial role as a pillar of democracy and overcome challenges in places such as Sudan and South Sudan, Somalia, Uganda, Rwanda, and Kenya? The discussion will also examine the development of unions and media associations as well as the international donor community’s role in supporting independent media in East Africa.

Speakers: Tamerat Feyisa, Addisnegeronline.com; John A. “Al” Hosinski, Solidarity Center; Joan Mower, Voice of America; Omar Faruk Osman, Federation of African Journalists. Tuesday, November 15, 2011. 10-11:30 a.m. (Light refreshments will be served.). National Endowment for Democracy, 1025 F Street, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011. From Arab Spring to Coptic Winter: Sectarian Violence and the Struggle for Democratic Transition in Egypt On Sunday October 9, 2011, 25 people were killed and more than 300 injured when the Egyptian military attacked a peaceful group of Coptic Christians protesting the burning of a church in Aswan. In what has been deemed the “Massacre at Maspero,” referring to the location of the demonstration, witnesses say the army fired on the demonstrators with live ammunition and plowed into the crowd with armored vehicles. The military denied the use of live ammunition and claimed that their soldiers were attacked by an armed mob. The military has arrested at least 28 people, almost all Copts, including prominent blogger Alaa Abdel Fattah, and brought them before military prosecutors. The hearing will focus on violence perpetrated against the Coptic Christians in Egypt, the implications of the events for that community and the current Egyptian leadership, and prospects for the consolidation of democracy in Egypt.

Witnesses Scheduled to Appear: Mr. Michael H. Posner, Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Department of State; Ms. Dina Guirguis, Egyptian democracy activist and attorney and member of the Egyptian American Rule of Law Association (EARLA); Mr. Samuel Tadros, Research Fellow, Center for Religious Freedom, Hudson Institute; Dr. Michele Dunne, Director, Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, Atlantic Council.

Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. Iraq Drawdown and the Transfer of Civil Society Building. The American Islamic Congress and its Executive Director, Zainab Al-Suwaij, hold a briefing to discuss the transfer of civil society building to the development community in Iraq in the context of the impending drawdown of U.S. troops. The event is in cooperation with the Office of Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ). The event is open to the public. Policymakers, NGOs and the media are welcome and encouraged to attend.

Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011. 2:30 – 4:00 p.m. 1539 Longworth House Office Building, Capitol Hill. The panel features four esteemed speakers with expertise in civil society building initiatives: Rahman Aljebouri, Director, MENA Programs, National Endowment for Democracy; Benjamin Parry, Senior Program Manager – MENA, American Islamic Congress; Dr. Judith Yaphe, Distinguished Research Fellow for the Middle East, Institute for National Strategic Studies at National Defense University; Douglas Ollivant, Senior National Security Studies Fellow at New America Foundation; John Pinna, Office of Government Relations, American Islamic Congress (Moderator). For media inquiries, please contact Aimee Chiu at 202-595-3160 or aimee@aicongress.org For more information about the event, please contact John Pinna at 202-593-3160 or john@aicongress.org. Registration required. RSVP to rsvp@aicongress.org

Thursday, November 17, 2011. Game Changer: Policy and Politics For a New Middle East Conference schedule includes: 9:00am-10:30am – After the Arab Spring: Assessing US Policy in the Middle East: Steve Clemons, New America Foundation, The Atlantic; Ambassador (ret.) Daniel Kurtzer, Princeton University; Ambassador (ret.) Ron Schlicher, Former US Department of State; Tamara Cofman Wittes, Deputy Assist. Secretary of State-NEA. 10:45am-12:15pm – The Road Ahead for Emerging Arab Democracies: Esraa Abdel Fattah, Egyptian Democratic Academy; Michele Dunne, Atlantic Council; Larry Diamond, Stanford University; Radwan Masmoudi, Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy. 2:15pm-3:45 pm – Shifting Regional Power Dynamics in an Era of Change: Abdelkhaleq Abdalla, UAE University; Jamal Khashoggi, Al-Arab TV; Haim Malka, Center for Strategic and International Studies; Mohsen Milani, South Florida University; Paul Salem, Carnegie Middle East Center. 4:00pm-5:30pm- Economic and Development Strategies for a Middle East in Transition: Adel Abdellatif, UN Development Programme; Odeh Aburdene, OAI Advisors; Iman Bibars, Ashoka/MENA; Ambassador William B. Taylor, US Department of State.

Thursday, November 17, 2011. Matching the Market and the Model While media in many countries have shaken off political controls of the past and are operating with unprecedented freedom, media managers and editors in emerging democracies often find they are unable to take full advantage of this new space because they lack basic skills in business management. Mounting economic pressures and the move toward mobile distribution of news with very different advertising structures make it even more difficult to sustain hard-won advances on the editorial front. Panelists will examine these challenges and discuss two new reports: Financially Viable Media in Emerging and Developing Markets, published by the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers in partnership with the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, and Matching the Market and the Model: The Business of Independent News Media, by the Center for International Media Assistance. Both studies cite the need for a shift in media assistance that will help media managers build a more solid and sustainable economic foundation to support the creation of quality content on multiple platforms. The speakers will outline a variety of business models for media in several countries around the world and examine what lessons can be learned from those experiences.

Michelle J. Foster, Author, Matching the Market and the Model: The Business of Independent News Media; Caroline H. Little, Newspaper Association of America;  Harlan Mandel, Media Development Loan Fund; Anne Nelson, Principal Researcher, Financially Viable Media in Emerging and Development Markets Moderated by: John D. Sullivan, Center for International Private Enterprise.  12-2:00 p.m. (Lunch served from 12-12:30 p.m.) 1025 F Street, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, DC20004. If you are unable to attend, watch the event live here. Follow the event on Twitter: #cimaevents

November 17, 2011: Is the Community of Democracies Coming of Age?  Since its establishment just over ten years ago, the Community of Democracies has struggled to fulfill its potential. Critics have questioned its ability to go beyond talk to effective action in support of global democracy. In the past several years, the Community has made new efforts to sharpen its governance and set out practical lines of work. Proponents of the Community argue that it is now coming of age and deserves a second look from skeptics. Key official representatives active in the Community will discuss whether this optimism is warranted and highlight current developments in the Community’s work. Speakers: Samantha Power serves as special assistant to the president and senior director for multilateral affairs and human rights in the Executive Office of the President. Evaldas Ignatavicius is vice-minister of foreign affairs of Lithuania. Suren Badral is ambassador-at-large to the Community of Democracies for Mongolia. Tomicah Tillemann is senior adviser for civil society and emerging democracies to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Moderator: Thomas Carothers is the vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is the founder and director of the Democracy and Rule of Law Program.  4:00 PM – 5:15 PM EST. Location: 1779 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Full details here or contact zbenezetparsons@ceip.org.

Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011. “A Bitter Taste of Freedom.” A powerful documentary chronicling the life and career of slain investigative reporter Anna Politkovskaya, “A Bitter Taste of Freedom,” will screen Thursday, Nov. 17, at 7 p.m. at Georgetown University. The International Women’s Media Foundation, in partnership with Georgetown University’s Film and Media Studies Program and the Doyle Initiative, will present the screening, followed by a question-answer session with acclaimed Russian filmmaker Marina Goldovskaya, at the McNeir Auditorium, 37th and O Streets NW. The event is free, but seating is limited; please RSVP to iwmf@iwmf.org by Nov. 15.

Politkovskaya, the winner of IWMF’s 2002 Courage in Journalism Award, spent her career exposing corruption and abuse of power as a reporter for Novaya Gazeta.  During her investigation of human rights abuses by the Russian military in the Chechen conflict, soldiers threatened to rape and shoot her.  After repeated death threats, Politkovskaya was brutally killed outside her apartment on Oct. 7, 2006. For additional information about the documentary, please contact IWMF’s Director of Programs Nadine Hoffman at nhoffman@iwmf.org or call 202-567-2610.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011: Contemporary Challenges Facing North Africa. North Africa, a region that has been recently thrust back into the spotlight, is facing profound political, economic, social, and security challenges. The recent toppling of the presidents of Tunisia and Egypt, the ongoing violence in Libya, and the spreading protests throughout the Middle East, pose a direct threat to regime stability, calling into question the legitimacy of some while strengthening the legitimacy of others. Struggling with rising poverty, health care deficiencies, and unemployment, North Africa is in great need of human resource development and a stronger private sector. Finally, the rise of political Islam and more importantly the proliferation of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) feature among the primary concerns of the region and bear serious implications for Africa, the greater Middle East, and beyond. This conference will bring together recognized academic and analytical expertise in order to examine these challenges and their implications for U.S. foreign policy. Speakers: Bruce Maddy-Weitzman, Tel Aviv University; Audra Grant, RAND Corporation; Peter Schraeder, Loyola University Chicago; William Lawrence, International Crisis Group. Moderated by Tally Helfont, FPRI. Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2011. Place: Reserve Officers Association, One Constitution Avenue NE, Washington, DC. Free for Members of FPRI and ROA $20 for others. Event will be webcast.

Contact Tally Helfont at (215) 732-3774, ext 218 or thelfont@fpri.org. Use this link to register for free webcast.

Bruce Maddy-Weitzman is Senior Research Fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University and editor of its Tel Aviv Notes, an update on Middle Eastern developments. Audra K. Grant is a political scientist at the RAND Corporation, whose current research is on climate change and displacement in Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Yemen, and Syria and on Moroccan youth. Peter J. Schraeder is a professor and graduate program director in the Department of Political Science at Loyola University Chicago. His research interests include comparative foreign policy theory, United States and European foreign policies toward Africa and the Middle East, African politics and foreign policy (including North Africa), and intervention in world politics and international democracy promotion. William Lawrence directs the International Crisis Group’s North Africa Project. Previously, he served as a U.S. State Department Senior Advisor for Global Engagement and as the State Department’s officer in charge of Tunisian and Libyan Affairs. Tally Helfont is a research fellow and the Coordinator of FPRI’s Program on the Middle East. Her current research focuses on the Levant, regional balance of power, and radical ideologies therein.

December 1, 2011: From Aid to Enterprise: Economic Liberty and Solutions to Poverty. Despite billions being spent trying to relieve poverty in the developing world over several decades, the results have been mixed at best. It is very hard to identify any country that has escaped poverty primarily through aid. By contrast, many countries have transitioned themselves towards significant, widespread economic prosperity through free enterprise, a moral culture, and the institutions that facilitate wealth-creation.

The Acton Institute will hold a day-long conference – From Aid to Enterprise: Economic Liberty and Solutions to Poverty – in London to explore the nature of free enterprise solutions to poverty, their underlying moral and institutional prerequisites, and stories of success and failure.

Bringing together scholars, policy-makers, clergy, and business leaders, this conference will address questions such as the limits and unintended consequences of aid, the role played by religious organizations in promoting or impeding economic development in developing countries, the emergence of cultures and institutions that facilitate economic growth, and the place of business in poverty-alleviation. This conference is the last in the seven-part series Poverty, Entrepreneurship, and Integral Development.

Speakers include: Paul Collier is professor of economics and director of the Centre for the Study of African Economies at Oxford University. He is the author of The Bottom Billion, which in 2008 won the Lionel Gelber, Arthur Ross and Corine prizes and in May 2009 was the joint winner of the Estoril Global Issues Distinguished Book prize. His second book, Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places was published in March 2009; and his latest book, The Plundered Planet: How to reconcile prosperity with nature was published in May of this year. Others speakers include: Mr. Declan Ganley, Ms. Marcela Escobari, Lord Brian Griffiths, Dr. Antoinette Kankindi, Ms. Anielka Münkel, Professor James Tooley. Date: Thursday, 1 December 2011. Time: 10.00-17.00 (includes lunch) Registration opens at 9.00 Location: Crowne Plaza St. James, Buckingham Gate, London SW1E-6AF. This conference is free and open to the public. Click here to register

December 7-9, 2011. Ideology, Power, and Alliances in a Changing Middle East.  Washington Forum of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. The FDD’s annual policy summit this year focuses on “Ideology, Power, and Alliances in a Changing Middle East” and will explore policy options for the challenges facings the world’s free nations.

Taking place December 7-9, the conference will feature some of the world’s foremost experts in national security, foreign policy and the Middle East at the Newseum, one of Washington’s premiere venues.

Join FDD experts and interact with officials, diplomats, journalists and scholars. Speakers include Ambassador Ron Prosor (Israeli Ambassador to the UN), Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY, 17^th District), Lt. Col. John Nagl (Counterinsurgency Expert, Center for New American Security), Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL, 19^th District), Stephen Rademaker (Former Assistant Secretary of State, Bush Administration) Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA, 28^th District), John Limbert (Former Iranian hostage, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Obama Administration), Roya Hakakian (Bestselling author and Founder of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center), Catherine Dale (National Security Expert, Congressional Research Service), and many others. More speakers are being added every day. Check out the FDD website for the full list.

Register Online here. For more information about the conference or help with your registration, please contact Annie@defenddemocracy.org or 202.250.6144

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is a non-profit, non-partisan policy institute dedicated exclusively to promoting pluralism, defending democratic values, and fighting the ideologies that drive terrorism. Founded shortly after the attacks of 9/11, FDD combines policy research, democracy and counterterrorism education, strategic communications, and investigative journalism in support of its mission.

Tunisia's election result is a major triumph for Rachid Ghannouchi, Ennahda's leader

Tunisia’s leading Islamist party has claimed victory in the country’s first free election, but appears poised to form a national unity coalition with two rival secular parties.

“The first confirmed results show that Ennahda has obtained first place,” campaign manager Abdelhamid Jlazzi said.

While official results from Sunday’s poll have not been released, Ennahda based its projections on figures that party workers collated from results posted at individual polling stations.

“It doesn’t look like any party is going to be over about 35 to 40%,” said Ambassador Richard Williamson, an election monitor with the International Republican Institute. “Coalitions will be necessary.”

Attention will now shift to the likely composition and performance of the country’s first democratically-elected government.

“Most people believe this has been an inspiring election,” said Les Campbell, of the Washington-based National Democratic Institute. “It remains to be seen what comes next. Democracy was seen yesterday, now it is important that the political parties reflect the will and spirit of the people.”

NDI and IRI were among several democracy assistance groups to monitor the election while taking pains to emphasize that Tunisia’s transition is home-grown. Indeed, Tunisian activists are now promoting “democratic learning” with other Arab democrats.

“No one is claiming to be teaching other Arabs democracy,” writes Larbi Sadiki, author of Arab Democratization: Elections without Democracy. “To the contrary, young representatives of the country’s EU trained and funded first electoral observation NGO, Muraqiboun, say they are happy to cooperate with Libyans and Egyptians to consolidate democratic learning.”

Analysts and activists alike had anticipated that a broad-based national unity government was the most likely and desirable scenario to ensure stability and ease market anxieties.

“The Islamists, when we met with them, told us that they have no intention of governing alone even if they win a majority of the vote — that they are looking for a coalition,” said former Jordanian foreign minister Marwan Muasher, a member of the NDI observation mission, told The Atlantic’s Elizabeth Dickinson.

But forming an inclusive coalition will require compromise and accommodation of opposing interests – and approach that has been in short supply during a polarized election campaign.

“The challenge is to bring everyone to the middle,” said Radwan Masmoudi, head of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy. “I think everyone understands that we have to work together.”

Latest reports suggest that the Islamist party will propose a coalition interim government with some of its secular rivals.

“We in Ennahda are prepared to make an alliance with Moncef Marzouki’s Congress for the Republic and [Mustafa] Ben Jaafar’s Ettakatol, given they are not far from us in their views and also that these two parties had a large share of the vote,” said Ali Larayd, a member of Ennahda’s executive committee.

The result is a major triumph for Rachid Ghannouchi (above), the party’s leader, who is widely credited with modernizing the group’s creed by insisting on the compatibility of Islam and democracy. More recently, he has argued that Ennahda’s participation in Tunisian governance is the only solution to the violent Islamist radicalism evident in recent attacks on secular figures and institutions, including the firebombing of a TV executive’s home.

Some secular groups appear inclined to give Ennahda the benefit of the doubt, confident that Tunisians’ civil society and secular forces are strong enough to counter any Islamist agenda.

“The diversity and openness of civil secular society in Tunisia is strong and isn’t going to change,” said Kais Nigrou, of the Modernist Democratic Pole, a center-left coalition. “We don’t see a threat from Islamists. If 40% voted for Islamists, 60% of society did not.”

The leader of Tunisia’s centre-left Progressive Democratic Party, trailing in second place, conceded defeat as votes were still being tallied.

“The trend is clear. The PDP is badly placed. It is the decision of the Tunisian people. I bow before their choice,” PDP leader Maya Jribi (left), the only female party leader, told Reuters. “We will be there to defend a modern, prosperous and moderate Tunisia,” she said, while congratulating “those who obtained the approval of the Tunisian people.”

“We are in a democracy, and minorities will play the role of the opposition and we will play this role,” said Jribi, the secretary general of the party. “We will ask the assembly to apply the demands of Tunisians. We will play a role in the writing of the constitution and ensure it will have a separation of religion and state.”

Many observers attribute the Islamists’ victory to secular parties’ failure to develop a coherent platform and to Ennahda’s superior organization, drawing on mosque-based networks covertly cultivated during decades of repression.

“Normally, Ennahdha would not get more than 20 percent of the vote but the weakness of the electoral campaigns of some parties may make it reap the majority,” said Mohsen Marzouk, secretary general of the Arab Democracy Foundation.

The party has also gained support and legitimacy by blending its religious message with social welfare, focusing on needs as well as rights while liberal political forces are preoccupied with constitutional issues.

“Islamists have the benefit of a simple message to win votes, namely that they are following the true path of Islam with its promise of social justice,” the Financial Times’ Roula Khalaf noted:

But it is their ability to organize and relate with populations in need that also gives them a political edge. Talk to people in impoverished neighborhoods in Cairo and they will tell how the Brotherhood set up stands outside schools to sell notebooks at low prices, and fruit stalls during the holy month of Ramadan that offered dates at a fraction of the market price. Liberal parties are not mentioned because, unlike the Islamists, they lack an infrastructure of charities.”

“This victory shows that it is possible for a non-radical, Islamist party to win an election,” said Sofiane Ben Salah, an independent Tunisian analyst. “This is the first time this has happened in the Arab world.”

Many analysts believe a cross-party national unity government is both likely and necessary to reduce the polarizing conflicts between secular and Islamist forces that characterized the election campaign.

“The scene today reflects the polarization between the so- called modern and democratic forces on one side and Islamic and religious ones on another,” said Kais Saied, a constitutional law professor at Tunis University. “This and the proportional representation system will likely mean that no one group will dominate the assembly, opening the door for forging coalitions.”

The focus of attention will now shift to gauging whether the new government’s policies and actions will deliver personal and economic security by addressing the socio-economic grievances that drove Tunisia’s revolution.

A majority of Tunisians believe that the new government’s priorities should be “reducing bribery and corruption in government” and “managing the Tunisian economy well” (around 73 percent each), according to a previously unpublished survey by Princeton-based Pechter Polls. Two other priorities – providing economic benefits to “ordinary Tunisians” and protecting citizens against official abuse — ranked nearly as high (64 and 60 percent, respectively), notes David Pollock, the Kaufman fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

“People are worried about the security situation and everyone is waiting to see what will happen in the week after the elections,” said Bilel Ben Dhifallah, an economics lecturer at Tunis University. “There’s a relative state of fear but if things go smoothly, the Tunisian economy can take off.”

The revolts in Tunisia and Egypt were “not driven by religion or Islamists, but by longstanding political and economic issues and grievances,” writes John L. Esposito, a professor at Georgetown University:

The uprisings revealed a broad-based inclusive movement, not led by a single individual or driven by a single secular or religious ideology that demanded an end to dictatorship, repression, rampant corruption, and the lack of dignity, opportunity and a sense of a future that many young people experienced. Many challenges remain that will require a national political effort and coalition that cuts across political and ideological grounds.

“The biggest challenge now is that if the parties start arguing over the country’s Islamic identity or whether women who wear headscarves should or should not be allowed into state-building, we might not get clear, professional and determined policy on the economy,” said a Tunis-based diplomat.

The government’s political trajectory and the priority afforded to socio-economic as opposed to cultural issues may rest on Ettakatol, a small secular party which may wield disproportionate influence.

“Our priority is social justice,” an Ettakatol spokesman said, while “the Islamists’ [Ennahda] priority is culture.”

As one observer notes:

If Ettakatol binds with secular groups, they could challenge Ennahda’s hegemony – or even overtake it. But if Ettakatol sides with the Islamist party, Ennahda’s dominance – and its role in crafting the identity of Tunisia’s democracy – will be sealed.

The election results will have an impact well beyond Tunisia’s borders, observers suggest.

As the Wall Street Journal notes:

Democracy activists across the region hope that a successful vote here could galvanize pro-democracy movements that have flagged amid violent regime crackdowns, as in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, and by a pushback by old-guard counterrevolutionary forces, as in Egypt.

“People start to look and say, ‘See, they have democracy—why can’t I?’ Or they say, ‘That looks chaotic—I don’t want that,’” says Thomas Garrett, a vice president with the International Republican Institute, the Washington-based democracy assistance group. “A lot of people have said for years that you can’t have democracy in any Arab country. If it succeeds here, it will stand as a role model.”

Tunisia’s election should set a precedent for other transitions from authoritarian rule across the region, said Jane Harman, a former U.S. congresswoman who now heads the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

“Tunisia has set a marker here, a marker for what you do from a standing start — they had nothing going on here except two decades of autocratic, corrupt rule (until) nine months ago,” she said.

The election was a victory for dignity and freedom, said the mother of Mohamed Bouazizi, the street vendor whose self-immolation sparked Tunisia’s revolt and the wider Arab Spring.

“I am happy that my son’s death has given the chance to get beyond fear and injustice,” Manoubia Bouazizi told Reuters.

Some observers believe that Ennahda’s victory may boost the fortunes the hand of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists elsewhere in the region, but much will depend on whether the party adopts an inclusive approach.

“Any victory of … (Ennahda) would help the Brotherhood as the voice of liberal and moderate Islamists in Egypt,” said Khalil al-Anani, an analyst at the UK’s Durham University.

“I think if the Islamists won in Tunisia, this will push Islamists in Egypt to calm down fears and seek to build alliances and coalitions with secular and liberal forces. It will give the Brotherhood a kind of emotional power to go forward,” he said.

The Islamists’ victory will ensure they are the leading force in drafting the country’s new constitution, but observers believe it will seek to fashion a political settlement based on the Turkish model of reconciling Islam and democracy rather than an Iranian-style Islamic Republic.

“Every party is basically trying to see to what extent they can compromise with al-Nahda to organize a government,” Zied Mhirsi, a prominent Tunisian blogger, told al-Jazeera. “I don’t expect our revolution to become an Islamic Revolution but, at the same time, I expect Islam to be a part of Tunisian life, the way you could see it in Turkey.”

Ennahda is committed to a Turkish-style civil state, Ghannouchi recently told the Sousse Business Forum. “Building a democratic system is a goal in itself,” he said, rejecting suggestions that Ennahda had an instrumental “one vote-one person-one time” approach to democracy as a means for securing power and imposing Islamic law.

But Ghannouchi has also stated that the Quran and Sunna represent the “ultimate law” and Azzam Tamimi, his biographer and close confidante, does not rule out the possibility of shariah law.

“It is up to the people to decide,” said Tamimi. “That’s a choice that has to be respected, and I’m sure that al-Nahda movement would want to see a system of law and a system of governance that is in full compatibility with Islam.”

But whatever Ghannouchi’s personal convictions, his party is struggling to reconcile conflicting ideological imperatives that expose it to accusations of practicing a double discourse, says Jourchi Salah, editor of Amouharrer, an independent daily.

“There’s a chasm between the national leaders and the party base,” he argues. “While the national leaders like Ghannouchi have a political discourse, some important regional figures have a more religious discourse.”

The internal balance of factional forces will be exposed at the party’s party congress in January, he says. “We’ll see then who is the real winner, and who is the loser,” says Salah.

But the new government will need to prioritize economic performance over ideological or cultural preoccupations if it is to secure a fresh mandate under the new constitution.

“Far from creating the jobs protesters were demanding in January, the revolution is likely to have led to a rise in unemployment,” said Liz Martins, a Dubai-based senior economist with HSBC bank. “There will be pressure on the assembly to be seen to be doing something.”

Some Tunisians expect “an almost magical transformation,” The New York Times reports:

There is going to be social justice, freedom, democracy, and they are going to tackle the unemployment issue,” Mohamed Fezai, a jobless 30-year-old college graduate, declared confidently.

Observers fear that if Tunisia’s new government fails to deliver the jobs and services needed to meet the population’s arguably inflated expectations, a Russian scenario may result in which democracy itself may become tarnished by association with economic instability and personal insecurity.

“In 2012, we really have to get back into growth,” says Bechir Bouraoui, president of the Generation Tunisie Libre foundation, which works with unemployed youth. “There are lots of young people who are lost. They see that their regions are not developing well. They see that there are three, four, or five members of their family who are all jobless.”

Some observers fear that if Tunisia’s new government fails to deliver the jobs and services needed to meet the population’s arguably inflated expectations, a Russian scenario may result in which democracy itself may become tarnished by association with economic instability and personal insecurity.

“2011 is to the Arabs what 1989 was to the communist world,” writes Hoover Institution senior fellow Fouad Ajami. “The Arabs are now coming into ownership of their own history and we have to celebrate.”

But some analysts fear that the region’s transitions could yet take an illiberal turn in the absence of the assistance and incentives that helped consolidate democracy in post-Soviet central and eastern Europe.

A majority of Tunisians (58 percent) hold a very negative opinion of the United States, writes Pollock, the Washington Institute analyst. But the US “can do to earn more friends in Tunisia and help the country set an example of functioning democracy for the region,” he argues:

In particular, upgrading Tunisia from a “threshold” to a “compact” partner when issuing Millennium Challenge Account credits would be an excellent investment in regional stability as the Arab Spring turns to autumn. A free trade agreement would make sense as well. As long as Tunisia’s new ruling parties stay as moderate in power as they sound on the campaign trail, this fledgling Arab democracy merits determined American support.

The Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy is a grantee of the National Endowment for Democracy. NDI and IRI are core institutes of the NED.

President Obama is expected to use tomorrow’s speech on the Middle East to outline his administration’s strategy for the region. But any strategy must prioritize and the single most important thing that the administration can do right now is to focus on Tunisia, writes Radwan Masmoudi.

The Arab world desperately needs a successful working model for a modern democratic state, that is developed economically, politically, and socially, that respects individual rights and freedoms, but that also respects the Islamic and traditional values of the society.

There is one country that can more easily and quickly become that model, for several reasons.

First, Tunisia is already one of the most developed countries in the MENA region, with a diverse economy, a strong middle class, an excellent educational system, a homogenous society, educated and liberated women, and a modern economic infrastructure. The only thing the country lacked was good governance, with honest and visionary leaders. That is why it was the place where the “Arab Spring of Freedom and Dignity” began.

If the Obama administration can support the Tunisian people in this difficult and challenging transition to democracy, with economic and political assistance, we can move very quickly towards real and genuine freedoms and democracy. But freedom and democracy must also deliver improvements in daily life for most citizens, especially for the young educated men and women who are looking for an opportunity to improve their lives and contribute to the development of their country.

The U.S. can lead other nations in providing some “emergency funding” for the next year or two in order to stabilize Tunisia’s economy and help its transition to democracy. Experts estimate that the economy lost between $5 billion and $8 billion in the first 4 months of this year, as a direct result of the revolution. The international community, led by the U.S., should help the country not only get back on its feet, but also create the 700,000 jobs needed to employ the educated and restless youth.

The U.S. and the international community should also provide as much funding and technical support for the thousands of new civil society organizations in order to establish themselves and to provide much needed services, guidance, and assistance in the difficult months ahead. Of course, it should do so without taking sides or playing favorites, and especially without excluding moderate Islamic and religious-based groups and organizations that can reach and mobilize the youth and the population in the remote areas and villages, and give them hope for a better future.

Tunisia also has the great benefit of having one of the most moderate and progressive Islamic movements and parties in the region. It is a gift from history (and from God) that our country was the birthplace of the peaceful and democratic revolutions that we now see spreading throughout the region.

We must now make sure that it can become a successful model that will continue to inspire and motivate the rest of the Arab populations to push forward in this direction. Egypt and other countries can follow Tunisia’s lead, but failure here will have catastrophic repercussions in the region.

Radwan Masmoudi is president of the Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy.

A case of misplaced emphasis on sovereignty could derail the transition to democracy in Tunisia, writes Radwan A. Masmoudi, President, Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy.

Two days ago, Dr. Iadh Ben Achour, head of the Tunisian High Council for Political Reforms and the Achievement of the Goals of the Revolution, announced that Tunisia does not need and will not have international monitors for the elections.

I believe this is a misplaced emphasis on sovereignty and a major retreat from what the interim government (including the President and former prime minister) announced immediately after the revolution. Tunisia has never organized free and fair elections in the past, and most Tunisians will not believe the results of the elections without international supervision or monitors.

The “sensitivity” about foreign intervention is totally misplaced in this case. It has been used (and abused) by oppressive governments and regimes to justify falsifying the elections. We have been down this road before, under Ben Ali, Mubarak, Saleh, and the other Arab dictators.

True sovereignty belongs to the people, and the best way to protect the sovereignty of the people is to make sure that the elections are free and fair. Right now, many in Tunisia do not believe that this interim government is capable of organizing truly free and fair elections, and are afraid that the elections will not reflect the will of the people, just like all past elections.

The best way to guard against this is for all Tunisians to swallow their pride and request “international supervision” of the elections with the help of the The United Nations, the US, the EU, France, Germany, the Arab League, as well as numerous international Non-governmental organizations that have huge experience and expertise in the field of monitoring and supervising elections. International monitors are the best way, and possibly the only way, to guarantee that the elections will be free and fair and that everyone will accept the outcome of the elections whether they win or lose.

There are basically three levels of international involvement in any elections:

Level 1 – Observing - This allows the international community to send people to “observe” the elections, while the government controls the whole process and can limit what the observers can see. This is the minimum level of involvement and basically is just ceremonial. It will do nothing to prevent the government from falsifying the elections.

Level 2 – Monitoring - This allows the international community to send people to “monitor” the elections, which includes being involved in the design and monitoring of all the phases of the elections process. The monitors typically have to right to “watch and advise” on every step of the process, but the final decision remains with the government. This is the medium level of involvement and can make it difficult, but not impossible, for the government to falsify the elections.

Level 3 – Supervision - This allows the international community to supervise the whole process, and to be involved in the design, implementation, and monitoring of all the phases of the elections process. This is the highest level of involvement and basically guarantees that the elections will be free and fair since the international community and the various NGO’s need to be completely neutral in the whole process.

Given that Tunisia has never organized free and fair elections in the past, and given that the people of Tunisia have minimum trust in the institutions of the state and the government (especially the Ministry of Interior) which are still heavily dominated by former RCD members and officials, and also given how critical these elections will be to the success of Tunisia’s transition to a real and genuine democracy, the best way to guarantee that the elections will be free and fair is to organize them under international supervision (level 3).

Some Tunisians will object to this idea for fear that international supervision will amount to “interference” in the political process or reduction in the sovereignty of Tunisia. To the contrary, the international community, especially the United Nations, and tens of international NGO’s have amassed decades of experience and expertise in designing, implementing, and monitoring free and fair elections in various countries around the world. They are much less likely to take sides or to favor one party against the other, since they are vested in credible and free elections.

The Tunisian people are rightly worried about the ultimate success of their peaceful and democratic revolution, and about attempts of the “old guard” to derail it or steal its fruits. They also have an understandably strong sense of pride and ownership of their revolution.

However, the experience of previous transitions demonstrates that monitoring and other forms of external assistance can not only be delivered in ways which respect the sovereignty of the host country, but that experience actually enhances sovereignty by transferring skills and insights, and boosting the capacity of civil society and other local actors and institutions.

The International Forum for Democratic Studies recently issued a Tunisia working group report, which found that on electoral framework and administration”, “given past sham elections, there is a serious lack of knowledge and capacity.” It is doubtful that such knowledge and capacity can be acquired in the next six months or year. That is why we need to bring thousands of international monitors to guarantee that the elections will be free and fair. Otherwise, I am afraid that the turmoil will continue, and many Tunisians will not believe the outcome of the elections.

It is crucial that the next elections (to elect the Constitutional Assembly on July 24) be totally free, fair and credible in the eyes of all Tunisians. There has to be absolutely no doubt about the elections or their outcome, in order for all Tunisians to continue to believe in their nascent democracy, remain engaged in the political process, and avoid further instability or turmoil. This is critical for the success of the democratic revolution and the transition to democracy in Tunisia.

In light of all this, the Tunisian government and all Tunisians should appeal for help from the international community in organizing, implementing, and monitoring the next elections. In a few years, once democracy is more established and the institutions of democracy are stronger and more credible, Tunisia can hopefully organize free and fair elections on its own.

Successful and credible elections can pave the way for real democracy.

CSID is suported by the National Endowment for Democracy.

There is no prospect of Western intervention to stop Moammar Qadhafi’s assault on rebel-held cities in Libya, diplomats have concluded.

The UK and France “have lost all hope” of military action, reports suggest, citing senior European officials “who acknowledge the regime may be in a position to crush the uprising within weeks.”

At today’s G8 meeting, Germany joined Russia in blocking plans for a no-fly zone.

“The Americans are moving toward the security council, the Russians want more detail … and are cautious, but the Germans blocked it completely,” a diplomatic source told Reuters. “We are in a race against time between building a politically legitimate operation and taking action.”

France criticized the United Nations for not acting with more urgency to avert a pending humanitarian crisis.

“We are deeply distressed by the fact that things are worsening on the ground, that the Gaddafi forces are moving forward and the council has not yet reacted,” said Gerard Araud, the French envoy to the UN.

The US administration today defended itself against criticisms that it has failed to respond to calls for a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the National Security Council’s Samantha Power, and Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. are reportedly “sensitive to the urgency of responding decisively,”  but other figures in the administration are wary of repeating the Black Hawk Down scenario.

“What scares me about this is you could have a bunch of people who want to intervene — a weird coalition with short-term agreement on intervention but zero long-term end-state agreement,” says one U.S. official.

Several hundred advocates of Middle East democracy and a bipartisan group of foreign policy experts today appealed to President Barack Obama to lend practical support to Libya’s beleaguered opposition.

The democracy advocates recall Obama’s Cairo speech in which he declared his commitment to promoting democratic ideas and institutions.

“These are not just American ideas. They are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere,” he said.

The US and its allies should impose a no-fly zone, provide humanitarian and military assistance to the Benghazi-based provisional government, and warn Qadhafi’s forces that they will be prosecuted for any atrocities, says an open letter organized by the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy.

The letter’s signatories include Aly R. Abuzaakouk, director of the Libya Forum for Human and Political Development, CSID president Radwan A. Masmoudi, eminent Egyptian dissident Saad Eddin Ibrahim, as well as leading analysts and intellectuals, including Emad Shahin of the University of Notre Dame, and Stanford University’s Larry Diamond, Abbas Milani and Francis Fukuyama.

“The situation in Libya in the coming days will not just impact the Libyan people,” the foreign policy analysts warn. “As protests continue against repressive regimes around the world, the message currently being conveyed by our inaction is that killing and repression will go unpunished and are the best option for despots seeking to postpone reform.”

“For the sake of our security as well as America’s credibility with people who seek freedom everywhere, we ask you to act as quickly as possible to ensure that the people of Libya – and the world – know that we are willing to back up our principles with action,” says the appeal, facilitated by the Foreign Policy Initiative, and signed by Robert Kagan, Leon Wieseltier, and Michele Dunne, editor of the Carnegie Endowment’s Arab Reform Bulletin, amongst others.

These appeals appear to be falling on deaf ears, however, as the Obama administration seems preoccupied with avoiding mission creep and the escalation of engagement into full-scale military intervention.

But the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are no excuse for inertia in Libya, said Democratic strategist Bob Shrum.

“The fact that we blundered into bad policy doesn’t mean that we should eschew good policy,” he said. He believes a no-fly zone is a moral imperative to protect Libyan civilians from violent reprisals.

Obama also faces a political cost by doing nothing after calling for the Libyan leader’s ouster, analysts suggest.

“If he doesn’t go in and Qadhafi survives, Obama is going to get a share of the blame,” said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia.

The administration is also reluctant to provide military assistance to the rebels because of concerns about the opposition’s political orientation.  US Secretary of State met with opposition representatives in Paris yesterday, but policy-makers remain uncertain about the balance of forces within an inchoate and fragmented rebel coalition that evidently comprises radical jihadists as well as genuine democrats.

“I am of the opinion that it is not a good idea to give weapons and military support to people who you do not know,” said Democratic Senator Jim Webb, a former secretary of the U.S. Navy.

The leader of the National Transitional Council, former justice minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil (right), was one of the few public officials to openly criticize Qadhafi before the uprising. He presides over an eclectic and uneasy alliance that dates back to a massacre of 1,270 political prisoners in Tripoli’s Busalim (or Abu Salim) prison.

“Paradoxically, the killing designed to liquidate Qaddafi’s opposition may turn out to be a cause of his demise,” writes Libya analyst Nicolas Pelham. “Collective outrage at the 1996 slaughter at Busalim prison further fostered ties between the elitist revolutionary and mass reformist strains of Libya’s political Islam, as well as smaller liberal groups.”

Qadhafi’s repressive regime forced unlikely bedfellows to collaborate, but the alliance would probably fracture when no longer united by mutual hostility to Libya’s dictator.

“To date, inclusiveness has been its hallmark,” Pelham notes. “Young urban lawyers sit side-by-side with tribal elders and Islamists on the council. A non-Islamist lawyer serves as the National Council spokesman, and a staunch secularist is charged with running Benghazi’s education.”

Deposing Qadhafi would be no guarantee of stability, he suggests:

In the past, the strongman dominated; but with a more consensual politics each faction will demand its share. Oil workers will likely form unions, the army will want its reward for switching sides, and the tribes seek royalties for using their land for drilling and piping oil…..If any of the constituencies is dissatisfied, a central authority is likely to be too weak to prevent them from resorting to force to further their claims.

It is such a scenario that appears to be exercising minds in Washington.

“What we’ve learned over the last 20 years is that overthrowing objectionable governments is easy; replacing them with something good is hard,” said RAND analyst James Dobbins. The U.S. doesn’t want to get saddled with the transition.”

But an alternative scenario would see the creation of a Libya governed by democratic ideals, “possibly altering the face of the Arab world and inspiring more autocratic regimes to fall.”

The National Council “unanimously wants to put in place a democratic, civilian government with a constitution, separation of powers, freedom of the press and assembly, and multiparty elections,” reports suggest.

”We want a Libya where no one is above the law,” said Abdul Hafidh Ghoga, a leading lawyer and opposition spokesman. The opposition envisages a parliamentary rather than a presidential system with a secular constitution.

“It will never be an Islamic regime,” said constitutional law professor Salwa el-Daghili, another member of the council. “The revolution seeks advancement for both men and women. The women here are well-educated. It is far from a Taliban-like state.”

President Obama is understandably reluctant to start a third war in the Islamic world, writes Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow in the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center. But the US could encourage an intervention by the Arab League, he argues:

We could help with the diplomacy and logistics. We can help isolate Gaddafi, cutting him off from resupply aid from rogue regimes like Venezuela or Belarus by imposing an arms quarantine. Or if the Arabs prefer, we can stay out completely and let them defend their people and dignity.

The Arab League could even play a military role, a regional analyst contends, noting that the Libyan Air Force is made up of “aging Cold War-era Soviet supplied fighters like Su-22, MiG-21 and MiG-23 and one remaining operational Mirage F-1 and some 30 MiMi-24 Helicopter gunships.”

A victory for Qadhafi will be a major setback for the Arab world’s democratic forces and a huge blow to US prestige and foreign policy leverage, analysts suggest.

“The administration will have put itself in the position of willing the ends, but not the means—a humiliating position for a great power,” writes Elliot Cohen, a Johns Hopkins University professor and former State Department adviser.

The administration is teaching dictators, and the populations they oppress, that you can get away with large-scale mayhem if you avoid YouTube. Instead, let the hard men do their work with assault rifles in alleys and soldering irons in lonely cellars. The thuggish leaders will be emboldened, the populations either despairing or desperate. If one hopes to aid the Arab awakening in the direction of more open and just societies, rather than to empower Islamist terror, this policy is perverse.

Tunisia presents an unprecedented opportunity to support a democratic transition in a post-authoritarian Arab state. But, as a recent report cautioned, that prospect is threatened by economic fragility resulting from lost tourist revenue and substantial capital flight.

“While the thirst for political reform is unquenchable, little has emerged about their attitude towards the economic reforms their countries desperately need,” an analyst notes. “That debate, when it comes, could be as wrenching as the political upheaval” – in Egypt as much as Tunisia:

That is because the Mubarak and Ben Ali regimes, which ran their economies as rackets for a tight circle of kleptocrats and concessionaires, may have discredited the very idea of reform. That discredit is the greater insofar as Egypt and Tunisia were held up by bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank as pioneers of economic reform in the region, while what Egyptians and Tunisians saw was cronyism and regime maintenance.

Similar concerns were expressed today at a Washington conference  on Tunisia’s path to democratic and economic reform organized by the Center for International Private Enterprise.

The country had been “blessed” with a peaceful “exemplary revolution,” said Abdulwahab Alkebsi, CIPE’s regional director for Africa and the Middle East. But the reforms required to meet the hunger for jobs and dignity that sparked the revolt were threatened by a damaging dynamic of populist demands generating equally irresponsible government concessions, increasing subsidies and swelling already bloated public sector job rolls.

Radwan Masmoudi, a former exile and president of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, had been thrilled and inspired to spend the last month in his liberated homeland, but he feared that economic instability could generate social unrest and potentially reverse democratic gains. A new Marshall Plan is needed to generate investment and consolidate democratic and economic reforms, he said.

[Or perhaps a huge infrastructure project like Destertec?]

The US and Europe should “take a lead in mobilizing resources so that democracy takes root in countries that eject authoritarian rulers,” says one analyst. “Call it a Marshall Plan if you like, but in any event the assistance must be on a scale equal to the challenge and the opportunity.”

The dramatic wave of protests across the Arab world is an unprecedented learning opportunity for questioning our assumptions and analyses, reviewing and resetting our understandings, said the National Endowment for Democracy‘s Laith Kubba.

The NED has been actively engaged in the region for longer than most, he told the CIPE event, employing a distinctive multi-sectoral approach to supporting democratic actors in labor movements, business and across civil society.

Tunisia’s revolution was sparked by a street vendor’s tragic self-immolation, but subsequently organized and politicized by the country’s labor unions. Unrest in other Arab states has been prompted and marshaled by other political forces, whether Libyan lawyers, Egyptian youth activists or Yemeni Islamists.

“The trigger varies, but the dynamics are the same,” said Kubba, the NED’s senior director for the Middle East and North Africa.

Business cannot be separated from a country’s political culture, but the private sector has been off the pace when its contribution is vital to ensuring a democratic transition in Tunisia and, therefore, across the region.

Wary of corruption and entrapment, entrepreneurs had largely shunned politics under Ben Ali’s authoritarian regime, said Nazeh Ben Ammar, president of the Tunisian American Chamber of Commerce. But business owners did belatedly support the revolution and now accept the need to become better organized in articulating private sector demands while pressing for market-friendly reforms.