Home > Conferences and Events > Calendar of Events > W039

Europe's Legacy? From Colonialism to Democracy Promotion:
The Case of the Mediterranean

Organiser: Michelle Pace, University of Birmingham and Peter Seeberg, University of Southern Denmark

Date: 21-22 April 2007

Venue: Odense, Denmark

Contacts: Michelle Pace (m.pace[a]bham.ac.uk) and Peter Seeberg  (seeberg[a]hist.sdu.dk) and www.bisa.ac.uk/groups/ims/ims.htm or www.eri.bham.ac.uk

Workshop Report: Europe's legacy? From colonialism to democracy promotion. The case of the Mediterranean

In a constantly evolving socio-political context, Mediterranean countries have recently witnessed the rise of new actors such as Kifaya in Egypt, the Party of Justice and Development (PJD) in Morocco or the Hezbollah in Lebanon. It is therefore important to reflect about how these “nouvelle donnes” affect the role of the European Union (EU) as a democracy promoter. Although the EU’s strategy has been hailed as relatively successful in the case of Central and Eastern Europe, it has indeed proven rather challenging in the case of the Arab-Mediterranean region.

It is in this context that Michelle Pace (University of Birmingham) and Peter Seeberg (Centre for Middle East Studies, University of Southern Denmark) gathered a group of academics and practitioners from the Euro-Med region to assess this crucial aspect of the EU’s external policy and to explore the challenges posed to the EU’s efforts at democratizing the Mediterranean.  The workshop, entitled “Europe's legacy? From colonialism to democracy promotion. The case of the Mediterranean” was sponsored by the BISA Working Group on International Mediterranean Studies, the Faculty for the Humanities & the Institute for History and Civilization as well as the Centre for Middle East Studies (University of Southern Denmark), the University Association for Contemporary European Studies (UACES), the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Danish-Egyptian Dialogue Institute (Cairo), RAMSES (a Network of Excellence on Mediterranean Studies, Oxford) and the European Research Institute (Birmingham University). The workshop took place on 21 and 22 April at the Centre for Middle East Studies at the University of Southern Denmark in Odense.

The workshop emphasized the importance of refocusing the analysis on Mediterranean actors as protagonists of change and of developing studies on Islamist parties as potential EU partners in the democratization of the region. The papers presented during the two-day session explored the internal and external dynamics at the heart of the recent transformations in the Maghreb and the Mashrek. The main contribution of the workshop was to look at the EU’s postcolonial legacy and its normative power as potential explanatory factors of the process of democratization, issues that have often been overlooked in previous academic debates which rather focused on the authoritarian nature of the regimes as an obstacle to democratization.

In an effort to understand the EU’s role in promoting democracy in the Mediterranean, the first panel dealt with its normative and discursive dimensions. Unpacking the EU’s efforts at promoting democratization, the paper presented by Michelle Pace (University of Birmingham) emphasized the EU’s inherent paradoxes in light of its colonial past. One of these contradictions lies in the fact that democracy is conceived as a means for pursuing the EU’s security objectives in the region. The EU’s understanding of democracy which emphasises the importance of elections was seriously challenged by the Palestinian elections of January 2006 and the ensuing victory of Hamas. The EU’s decision to freeze its aid to the Palestinian Authority reflects a very short-term focused and personalized view of the democratization process, according to Pace. The EU’s contradictions are also to be found in the EU’s denial of its own Mediterranean past, as Dimitri Nicolaïdis pointed out (Maison Méditerranéenne des Sciences de l’Homme, Aix-en-Provence). While projecting itself as a normative power in the region, it is puzzling that the EU, at the same time, refuses to recognize the inherited legitimacy, including border drawing and ensuing territorial conflicts, of its colonial past. Hence, the West never recognized its responsibility for the split of Palestine, nor for the Western Saharan conflict. This influences the uneasiness with which the EU is dealing with its Mediterranean partners, partly defined by the EU’s dominant representation of Islam. Following up on this point and questioning traditional functionalist analysis in the study of the EU’s democracy promotion, Frédéric Volpi (University of St Andrews) called for a new paradigm to analyze the rise of long-term trends and in particular political Islam. Customarily scrutinized through the linkage between modernization and secularization which are assumed to result in democratization, there is in fact a crucial need for alternative narratives to explain change in the Middle East and North African region, notably the transformation of Islamic ideas of governance and related transnational features.

The democratic challenge in Palestine was the subject of the second panel which analyzed the recent rise of Hamas and its implications for democracy. Examining the ascension to power of Hamas, Beverly Milton-Edwards (Queens University) underlined the challenge that political Islam appears to pose to Western notions of democratic governance.  Indeed, despite having encouraged the Palestinians to hold democratic elections, the EU participated in the diffusion of chaos and frustration by suspending its aid, vital to the Palestinian Authority. Milton-Edwards nonetheless argued that the EU needs to recognise the new “Palestinian Muslim polity” as a permanent and unalterable feature of the Palestinian political arena.  Stressing the fact that the Hamas victory was the direct outcome of a true democratic process in Palestine, Riad Malki (Panorama) highlighted, what in his view is, the tremendous regression in the status of democracy which has occurred since. According to Malki, Hamas has negatively influenced the democratic experiment at the level of Palestinian citizens, institutions, and the Palestinian political system. Analyzing the most recent Mecca agreement between Fatah and Hamas, Malki concluded that this is the result of a ‘lowest-common denominator’ agreement in terms of Palestinian democracy, notably of pluralism and the rotation of power and governance structures.

Turning to the “nouvelles donnes” in the Maghreb, the third panel examined the EU’s postcolonial legacy in Morocco and Algeria. Assessing the French imperialist legacy, Pierre Vermeren (University of Sorbonne) demonstrated its differentiated impact on Algeria and Morocco. Whereas independence from France was seen as a restoration of the Monarchy after the Protectorate in Morocco, Algeria’s independence was perceived as a revolution. Exploring this complexity at a deeper level and focusing on the issue of the Berber (Amazigh) movement in Morocco and Algeria, Michael Willis (Oxford University) similarly stressed the role played by the French in the emergence of the “Berber myth”; the Berbers being perceived as more reliable by the French. Berberist groups today form an important part of the associational life in these two cases and hence serve to strengthen civil society - an objective which in theory is supported by the EU’s democracy promotion efforts. But this cooperation is not easy, since the Berbers have often been accused of being the Trojan horse for Western interests.  The last paper of this panel, presented by Hakim Darbouche (University of Liverpool) looked at the EU’s colonial legacy and its influence on its relationship with Algeria. Here again, the “colonial effect” shapes the EU’s policies towards Algeria, notably the role of France which plays a perverse role in promoting democracy and contributes to the EU’s mis-reading of the Algerian crisis.

The fourth and fifth panels looked closely at some of the key addressees of the EU’s democracy promotion efforts. Amal Obeidi (University of Garyounis) provided a study of the “temporary elite” phenomena in Libya. The “temporary elites” were created by the regime and their composition was continuously changing according to the needs of the regime. Over the years, the regime managed to narrow down its structure and to make it more hierarchical. In the meantime, it has favoured the increasing role of the tribes in Libyan politics, which constitute an alternative source of its legitimacy. The importance of elite groups in the democratization process was similarly stressed by Thomas Demmelhuber’s study of reform actors in Egypt (University of Nuremberg- Erlangen). The “Gamal group”, a group of young Western-educated people who evolve around Mubarak’s son, is amongst the groups with which the EU should reconsider its cooperation. Looking at the “variety versus capability gap” that characterizes reform actors such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Kifaya, Demmelhuber argued that these groups have increased (variety), but that most of them suffer from weaknesses in influencing the reform process in Egypt (capability). It is on this double dimension that the EU should focus its action, by supporting this variety of actors, and also by helping them to increase their capabilities. Investigating the 2005 Judges’ revolt that occurred during the most recent 2005 elections in Egypt, Sarah Wolff (London School of Economics) highlighted the EU’s inability to seize the window of opportunity which opened in terms of its ‘rule of law’ promotion agenda. Having become a buzzword for EU actions, Wolff reflected on how the EU, due to an incremental and path-dependent policy-making approach, has been unable to promote rule of law in Egypt and in the Mediterranean. Worse, the EU is in a process of securitizing the promotion of democracy through law, by developing in parallel an external dimension of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) which endangers the EU’s efforts in this process.

The emergence of new actors in the Maghreb’s democratization process poses new challenges to the EU. Traditionally, in the democratization literature, opposition actors are depicted as united under the same goal of removing the authoritarian leader despite their ideological differences.  Francesco Cavatorta (Dublin City University) emphasised that unity amongst opposition actors is not automatic and that, in the case of Morocco, ideologies are still an important factor differentiating these agents. The lack of cooperation between the various Moroccan opposition actors is in turn due to fundamental disagreements between liberal and secular movements over their long-term vision for society. It is in this context that Eva Wegner (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik) and Miquel Pellicer-Gallardo (Humboldt University) offered an analysis of the Party of Justice and Development (PJD) and its relationship with its founding organization the Movement of Unity and Reform (MUR). Recently, the PJD has been able to gain some autonomy from the MUR, at the same time ‘moderating’ its ideological stance, which makes it a possible partner for external actors like the EU. Exploring the relationship between Tunisia and the EU, Rikke Hostrup Haugbølle (University of Southern Denmark) pointed out the importance of tribal identities in processes of democratization: Ignoring such a crucial basis of the Tunisian social structure impedes EU efforts at supporting reforms along the democratization path. Drawing on transition and post-colonial literature, Brieg Powel (University of Exeter) analyzed the nature of the Tunisian regime, one that is influenced by the divide between Francophiles and Arab-Islamists. Put into the perspective of EU-Tunisian relations, the EU’s reluctance to engage with Islamists was stressed as well as the increasing emphasis on the notion of security in EU’s democracy promotion agenda.

The ultimate panels focused on democratization processes in the Levant region. André Bank (Philipps University Marburg, with Morten ValbjØrn University of Southern Denmark) presented a paper on the role of Islamists in Jordan and its influence on regional dynamics by contrasting two periods, post-1958 and post-2006. Drawing on the concept of the ‘Old Arab Cold War’ developed by Kerr, Bank and Valbjørn argued that today’s regional order can be apprehended as a ‘New Arab Cold War’, with some similarities and differences from the ‘Old’ version. The more contemporary form is notably characterized by a cleavage between the regime and the society and influenced by Islamist actors.  Peter Seeberg (University of Southern Denmark) investigated the Hezbollah phenomenon, the “shia revival” in Lebanon and the implications that the ongoing political turmoil has on the EU’s democratization possibilities in the region. The 2006 war exposed the polarization of Lebanese society but also the rise of Iran as a non-Arab regional power. In this context, EU’s institutions and decision-making processes severely constrain EU action. The combination of the weakening of the Arab states and inefficiency in the EU’s foreign policy machinery leaves policy initiatives in the hands of Hezbollah and Iran. Karim Knio (ISS The Hague) concluded the panel sessions by arguing that beneath the current Lebanese stalemate, the existing ‘nested games’ envision a multitude of scenarios that will weaken Hezbollah’s political options in the future. Such situations will push Hezbollah to strive for preserving its status in the Lebanese political scene.

The variety and the richness of the papers presented at the workshop were reflected in a public conference that took place in the late afternoon of the first day of the workshop. Following a presentation about the Danish Arab initiative by Eva Raabymagle, Head of Section from the Department for the Middle East and North Africa at the Danish Foreign Ministry, researchers and the wider audience engaged in a discussion on options for the EU’s democracy promotion in the Mediterranean, as well as on the need for a rethinking of the EU’s understanding of the notion of democracy. Beverly Milton-Edwards argued that it is not enough to launch ‘dialogues’ with Mediterranean partners, but that the EU should reflect about who is actually listening to Europe, who Europe should talk to and who should listen to Europe.

As a follow-up to the workshop, the organisers are committed to a special issue of the journal Democratization. A book version of this special issue is also envisaged. Other workshop papers will be submitted to the journal Mediterranean Politics.

Prepared by Sarah Wolff and Michelle Pace

Sarah Wolff is PhD Research Student at the Department of International Relations, The London School of Economics & Political Science, UK

Michelle Pace is Research Councils United Kingdom Fellow in EU enlargement, the EMP and the ENP at the European Research Institute, the University of Birmingham, UK

Last modified: Friday, 11 May 2007
idW039  +31Jan2007  ©UACES 2007