RSS
Home
Why Mauritania and not Honduras?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.jpeg)
Progressives find it heartening when countries move toward democracy and away from autocratic rule or theocratic rule or, in the case of the northwestern African nation of Mauritania, which held a presidential election on Saturday, away from military rule. The election winner was Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, who himself had taken control of Mauritania in a military coup in August 2008 against Sidi Ould Cheikh Abdallahi, who had been elected by the support of the last military junta in Mauritania, in August 2005.
Needless to say, having the backing of a non-democratically elected military government had left Abdallahi under a cloud of suspicion. And, while a military coup in and of itself isn't a necessarily or essentially bad thing when the new leader after the junta calls for elections (which is what a junta ought to do, as soon as possible). After all, the 2005 coup in Mauritania was undertaken to remove an autocratic leader from 21 years in power. But when it becomes clear that the new leader (in this case Abdallahi) is corrupt and maneuvering to remain in power by exercising extraordinary power, then he has to go one way or the other.
Constitutional means would be best, obviously — after all, I've been among the voices complaining about the Honduran coup against its democratically elected leader. But there are key differences here.
Now, Abdel Aziz had been one of the coup leaders from last year, but two things distinguish Abdel Aziz from Abdallahi. First, Abdel Aziz stepped down from the junta before the weekend's elections were held. Second, and perhaps more importantly, while international reaction to last year's coup were harsh, moderate North African régimes have been supportive of Abdel Aziz and the direction in which he appears to desire to move. Notably, the government of Morocco, which lies due north of Mauritania, has been supportive of Abdel Aziz, probably because of the dedication of Abdel Aziz and the Moroccan government both to oppose fundamentalism in their nations.
Note that the current transition of power has taken place under, shall we say, less than satisfactory means. And any government that takes its initial power through a military coup stands a large risk of falling by the same means. But it would be naïve to think that a country can immediately transition from 21 years of authoritarian rule by a dictator to a perfectly free society in under five years. Rather, we must expect that there be "birth pangs of democracy," as they're euphemistically called in other countries.
I think the bring home message about the Mauritanian election is to be cautiously optimistic. Why? Isn't Abdel Aziz just another coup leader attempting to legitimize his power through an election? Well, yes he is. But having now done that, he needs to be given a chance to succeed or fail based on his own merits? Why? Because of where Mauritania is and the inherent danger of running a country in a part of the world that is firmly part of the Arab-Muslim world but, at the same time, wants a secular government and wants fundamentalism not to be a factor in that country.
Yes, I realize that this implies a double standard of sorts for different parts of the world. But Honduras does not face the same kinds of threats that North Africa does. A coup in Honduras against a democratically elected leader — even a corrupt democratically leader, as President Zelaya most probably is — is a greater outrage, in my opinion, that one in a country where security concerns are far greater. We're talking about human lives and the preservation thereof. For all of his unconstitutional maneuvering, President Zelaya of Honduras was not facing an existential threat in his country. All of the Muslim world is facing one, and therein lies the difference.
Related Articles:
Comments
