S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
163
Африкадаги оммавий норозилик ҳаракатларида исломий таъсирларни ўсганлигини кўриш
мумкин : Миср, Марокаш ва Тунисда асосий сиёсий кучларга айланган бўлса, Сурия, Ливия ва
Яманда ўз мавқеларини кучайтириб олдилар. Исломчилар дунёвий партияларга қараганда фаол
ва ўта интизомли бўлганлари учун Шимолий Африка ва Яқин Шарқ минтақасидаги давлатларда
инқилобий воқеалар нуқтаи назаридан маълум афзалликларни бергандилар.
Бугун “араб баҳори” оқибатлари дунё ҳамжамиятига маълум: Яқин Шарқ минтақаси ва
Шимолий Африкани қамраб олган қонли тўлқинликлар, шафқатсиз қотилликлар, тинимсиз
терактлар ва динлараро низолар. Буларнинг барчаси минтақада радикал террорчи гуруҳларни
пайдо бўлиши учун серҳосил “тупроқ” бўлиб хизмат қилди.
Ҳозирда Яқин Шарқ минтақасида ҳанузгача жуда кўп можаролар мавжуд, араб
мамлакатлари халқларининг ижтимоий муаммолари ҳал қилинмаган, демократик ислоҳотлар
якунланмаган ва айрим давлатлар, одатда, баъзи бир йирик давлатларга қарам бўлиб
қолмоқда. Кўпчилик сиёсий таҳлилчилар “араб баҳори” Тунисда айрим муваффақиятларга
эришилганлигини таъкидлайдилар. Шу ўринда олмон эксперти М.Ассебургнинг “араб
баҳори”ни бошдан кечирган давлатларда инқилоб муваффақиятли тугадими ва одамлар ҳаёти
олдингисига қараганда анча яхшиландими? деган саволларга берган жавобларини эслаш
кифоя: “Тунисда инқилоб муваффақиятли бўлди, деб айтиш мумкин эмас, деб ўйлайман.
Намойишчиларнинг талаблари Тунисда ҳам бажарилмай қолди. Ижтимоий-иқтисодий
масалалар умуман четда қолиб кетди, яъни миллий бойликларни адолатли тақсимлаш, марказ
ва перифериялар ўртасидаги муносабатлар, коррупция муаммоси – бу соҳаларнинг ҳеч
бирида сезиларли ютуқларга эришилмаган. Лекин Тунисда инқилоб ва ўша вақтда бошланган
ўзгаришлар жараёни, ҳеч бўлмаганда қоғозда, биз аввалгидан кўра рақобатбардош ва
демократик сиёсий тизимни кўрмоқдамиз.”
THEORY AND PROBLEMS OF DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT
IN EGYPT AND THE MIDDLE EAST
KADIROVA GUZAL
PhD student, TSUOS
Аbstrаct. Over the past 30 years, multi-party regimes have replaced single-party regimes in Arab countries.
This process began in Egypt in 1976 with the division of the Arab Socialist Union into three groups. Later, in the
late 1990s, Egypt established an electoral system that served the interests of the ruling party’s candidate under
the provisions of the election law. This was since the powers of the head of state were constantly amending the
constitution. Although Egypt is officially a republic, it can be considered a modern version of a parliamentary
monarchy. Because the unlimited power of a political leader combines the functions of a party leader and a head
of state in the person of one person. As Western democratization processes take place, tensions between moderate
and radical forces and movements in the Arab world will increase.
In general, the processes of developing a democratic and civil society in Egypt are unique, which is very
different from the western understanding of these problems. At present, the Egyptian leadership faces a major
problem of how to achieve political and social modernization in society.
Keywords аnd expressions:
Middle East region, democracy, Egypt, Arab states, political system,
“Arabic Spring”, open civil society, modernization, “Western democracy”, political stability.
S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
164
Аннотация. Сўнгги 30 йил мобайнида араб мамлакатларидаги кўп партияли режимлар бир
партияли режимлар ўрнини эгаллади. Бу жараён 1976 йилда Мисрда Араб Сотсиалистик Иттифо-
қининг уч гуруҳга бўлиниши билан бошланди. Кейинчалик, 1990 -йилларнинг охирида, Мисрда сайлов
қонунчилиги қоидаларига мувофиқ, ҳукмрон партия номзодининг манфаатларига хизмат қиладиган
сайлов тизими ўрнатилди. Бу давлат раҳбарининг ваколатлари доимий равишда конституцияга
ўзгартиришлар киритганидан кейин содир бўлди. Гарчи Миср расман республика бўлса -да, уни
парламент монархиясининг замонавий версияси деб ҳисоблаш мумкин. Чунки сиёсий раҳбарнинг
чексиз кучи бир шахс тимсолида партия раҳбари ва давлат бошлиғининг вазифаларини бирлашти-
ради. Ғарбда демократлаштириш жараёнлари рўй берар экан, араб дунёсидаги мўътадил ва радикал
кучлар ва ҳаракатлар ўртасида зиддият кучаяди.
Умуман олганда, Мисрда демократик ва фуқаролик жамиятини ривожлантириш жараёнлари ўзига
хосдир, бу ғарблик бу муаммоларни тушунишдан жуда фарқ қилади. Ҳозирги вақтда Миср раҳбария-
тининг олдида жамиятда сиёсий ва ижтимоий модернизатсияга қандай эришиш мумкинлиги борасида
катта муаммо турибди.
Таянч сўз ва иборалар:
Яқин Шарқ минтақаси, демократия, Миср, араб давлатлари, сиёсий тизим,
"Араб баҳори", очиқ фуқаролик жамияти, модернизатсия, "Ғарб демократияси", сиёсий барқарорлик.
Аннотация. За последние 30 лет многопартийные режимы заменили однопартийные режимы в
арабских странах. Этот процесс начался в Египте в 1976 году, когда Арабский социалистический
союз был разделен на три группы. Позже, в конце 1990-х годов, в Египте была создана избирательная
система, которая служила интересам кандидата от правящей партии в соответствии с поло-
жениями закона о выборах. Это было потому, что полномочия главы государства постоянно
вносили поправки в конституцию. Хотя Египет официально является республикой, его можно
считать современной версией парламентской монархии. Потому что неограниченная власть поли-
тического лидера сочетает в себе функции лидера партии и главы государства в лице одного
человека. По мере того, как происходят процессы демократизации Запада, напряженность между
умеренными и радикальными силами и движениями в арабском мире будет усиливаться.
В целом процессы развития демократического и гражданского общества в Египте уникальны, что сильно
отличается от западного понимания этих проблем. В настоящее время перед египетским руководством стоит
серьезная проблема: как добиться политической и социальной модернизации в обществе.
Опорные слова и выражения: Ближний Восток, демократия, Египет, арабские государства,
политическая система, «арабская весна», открытое гражданское общество, модернизация,
«западная демократия», политическая стабильность.
It is known that Egypt is located in the Middle East, so all the processes and events taking place
here are directly related to this country.
In Algeria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, which were ruled by high-ranking officers in the 1960s
and 1970s, such regimes prevailed, but the military is gradually declining, although the military is still a
guarantee of stability. Authoritarian regimes are slowly declining. In 2003, the regime of Saddam Hussein
was overthrown in Iraq, a process that was observed in Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Sudan, and Yemen.
In countries, one-party systems are being replaced by multi-party systems. This process began in
Egypt in 1976 when the Arab Socialist Union split into three groups. The same can be said about Algeria.
The same thing happened in 1977-1985 in Libya and Sudan. Multiparty systems also differ in age and
orientation. In Egypt, for example, one can see their obvious “asymmetry”. This is explained by the fact
that the ruling parties are unable to get a majority of votes due to reasonable doubts about the fairness
and transparency of the elections. This is because open manipulations, such as vote-buying and vote-
rigging, are commonplace, as are numerous changes to the electoral law.
In the case of MAR, the "democracy" in the "Middle East model" is visible. Here, since the late
1990s, an electoral procedure has been established based on the provisions of the election law, which
serves the interests of the ruling party candidate. This is since the powers of the head of state are
S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
165
constantly changing (increasing) in the constitution (H. Mubarak - from 1981 to 2012). At the same
time, the issue of legal succession is an extremely delicate political factor.
These aspects lead to the conclusion that although Egypt is officially a republic, it is a modern
form of monarchy. That is, the unlimited power of a political leader combines the functions of a
party leader and a head of state in the person of one person.
The Arab states, regardless of the name of their political regime, have clearly expressed
authoritarian aspects. Everything in the region is run with the idea of authoritarianism, which in
itself calls into question the realization of the idea of pluralism.
The prospects for a democratization of political systems in the Arab world are very problematic. On
the one hand, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the complicated situation in Iraq, Iran's nuclear program -
these are big obstacles, on the other hand, the activities of the US and European National Endowment
for Democracy, National Democratic Institute, European Foundation for Democracy and other
institutions in the region. Is a direct invasion of the national sovereignty of the states of the region.
A clear example of this is the "Arab Spring" protests that began in 2011. French expert L. Martines
argues that the leadership of the Arab world stems from the view that ‘Shaan, not law or politics’, means
that for them the observance of the seed brotherhood is more important than anything else1.
In addition to Egypt, the strict regimes in the Middle East include Jordan and Saudi Arabia
2
. In
most cases, the opposition uses religion as a means of protest because the government has no right
to ban religion. In Egypt, as well as in Tunisia, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, the government is cracking
down on the opposition, even though the political activity of the population of the Arab states is
weak and the opposition is becoming more active. Well-known Egyptian human rights activist A.
Hamza estimates that it will take another 20 to 40 years for democracy to take root in Egypt
3
.
Of course, it takes time to build an open civil society. In our view, democratic reforms here can
only take place after secularization, mainly the liberation of social and individual consciousness
from the influence of religion.
Contrary to the U.S. initiative to democratize the Middle East, Egypt, along with Saudi Arabia
and Syria, have put forward their Arab model. At the same time, if the Arab regimes cannot solve
their social problems in politics, economics, and culture, the Arab model will not be effective.
Western experts believe that Middle Eastern regimes are incapable of carrying out genuine
democratic reforms because it threatens the very existence of these regimes. Consequently, the Arab
initiative to "democratize itself" is an attempt at a kind of "cosmetic repair" without touching on the
foundations of the current situation in the Arab world. But this attempt is being completely forgotten,
pausing with the Arab Spring processes that have begun in the region.
The main points of the Arab initiative are:
-
the reform should be carried out by the Arab societies themselves "from within" and not from
the outside, the reforms should be gradual so as not to undermine security and stability, the reform
process should serve the interests of the region, not the enemies (interested external actors), resolve the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict is an inevitable condition for the success of political reforms, the reform
process must take into account the specifics of each Arab country, reforms can not be carried out
uniformly, extremist groups should not be allowed to use the ongoing reforms and "open doors" policy.
1
See: Die Welt.-2009.-October, 23.
2
See: Washington Profile.-2007.-March, 22.
3
See: Al-Masry al-Youm.-2008.-July, 7.
S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
166
The lack of real democracy in these countries is explained by the fact that for more than 20-30
years the country has been ruled by tribal communities. The opposition in the region is a “religious
extremist group,” allowing the ruling regimes to rely on Western support as a “one-off alternative”.
Another problem is that in the Middle East, including Arab countries, special services are replacing
laws and preventing the development of civil society. There is also the view that most representatives of
the government and the bureaucratic apparatus use their official position only to gain wealth.
A common problem for most Arab countries is that in practice there is no democratic way of
succession. This provides a basis for the ruling elites to intensify opposition and fight for power
through uprisings and coups.
Former Egyptian Foreign Minister A. Regarding the Middle East reform, Maxer G-8 believes
that "many of Egypt's proposals, including the internal nature of these reforms, have been taken into
account, taking into account the specifics of each country."
In terms of modernization and reform of the Middle East, the OIC emphasizes that the countries
of the region can solve their problems independently without foreign intervention. The ICT casts
doubt on the acceptability of the Western model of democracy for Muslim communities, yet
nonetheless believes that the U.S. initiative to “reconstruct” the Middle East will be a definite
catalyst for this process.
A clear proof of this is the events of 2011-2013 in Egypt. As a result of this "Western
democracy", radical forces came to power and plunged the country into crisis.
Reforms in the Middle East are being discussed a lot. But some Egyptian experts are urging the U.S.
to allow the Arabs to carry out their reforms without outside interference. They argue that if Americans
want to help reform effectively, they should do more to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
To date, all US attempts to “democratize” the Middle East region have had the opposite effect,
namely instability, fundamentalism, and terrorism.
Democracy in the Middle East must take the form of an open, equal, and impartial dialogue. At
the same time, the transfer of "Western values" to the "land of civilization" in the Middle East does
no good. The interrelationships between civilizations can only be successful if they enrich and
understand each other.
It is now being actively used to prove that Muslim legal beliefs can be widely applied to Western
experience on key issues such as parliamentarian, elections, political pluralism, separation of
powers, and human rights. Of course, the adoption of world democratic principles by the countries
of the Middle East in these areas is usually quite limited, often consisting of copying from Western
models. However, the lack of an unequivocal requirement in Islamic legal thought that the question
of the formation of government should be based on the Shari'a itself, in general, allows for the use
of world experience in political democracy.
Maintaining political stability in the Middle East serves the interests of international security.
Experience has shown that the policy of ignoring Islam is leading to an increase in Islamic radicalism.
At the same time, the focus on artificial democratization and the perception of liberal values that
undermine traditional Muslim society’s removal of Islamic political and legal culture leads to the
risk of instability and, consequently, a decline in global security. Therefore, the democratization
strategy should be aimed at bringing the Arab East into the process of globalization together with
Islamic (including political and legal) values that are consistent with their universal democratic
principles and reconsidered in the spirit of modern reality.
S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
167
It is important to keep in mind that referring to the evidence of Islam is not a conditional step or
unfounded propaganda. The research of Arab jurists and political scientists, who interpret the Shari'a
moderately and moderately, shows that such harmony is theoretically important.
The ratio of Islamic and European approaches to the national-legal systems of the Arab states is
different. In particular, accepting or rejecting the Western experience depends on whether European
legal models conflict with European legal models with rules that apply directly to their religious
status in the minds of Muslims and reinforce the religious and moral principles of Islam.
Conflicts between religious and Western approaches to the law are not only possible but in some
cases inevitable. Conceptually, it is important to see the boundaries of their mutual adaptation
(adaptation) and integration. But bridging the gap between them remains. This conclusion is
important for assessing the prospects and forms of globalization in the political and legal component
of the Middle East and, consequently, for predicting its democratization. At present, there is no
consensus on how to integrate democratic reforms in Muslim countries in the Middle East into
maintaining political stability in the region and joining the globalization process.
In our view, as democratization processes take place, tensions between moderate and radical
forces and movements in the Arab world are likely to increase.
First of all, the proof of this was in the Arab Spring. The coal that started in 2011 is still burning.
Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria - all this is the result of this policy of
"spreading Western democracy."
In general, the processes of democratization and development of civil society in the Middle East
(Arab world), including Egypt, are unique and differ sharply from the Western understanding of
these problems.
The practice has shown that the risk of extremism and terrorism cannot be reduced by exporting
democracy instead of Islam. This means that democratization in the region can only be achieved if
there is a balance between the traditions of Muslim culture, on the one hand, and the pursuit of
democratic institutions, on the other.
MODERN APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF MODERN
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
SADIBAKOSEV KHABIBULLO
PhD student, UWED
Аbstrаct. The Cold War was not only traditional in international relations next phase of the struggle for world
domination, but also an ideological war aimed to impose on the opposing powers a certain value system, social
structure, political regime, etc. As a result the ideological conflict of the opposing powers became an important
component of the Cold War. With the end of the Cold War the problems of «end of history» and the “end of
ideologies” were actualized on the West. It became about an axiom that the world politics lost its ideological
dimension. In fact, however, ideological component is deeply integrated into the emerging «new» world order.
Even the dominance of Western countries in the emerging system of international relations was legitimated by the
postulates of neo-liberalism. The coming to power in the USA of president D. Trump and changes in American
foreign policy stress a deep transformation in the modern system of international 51 relations. Unconditional
