RAMALLAH (IPS) — The Mideast continues to be plagued by autocratic Arab regimes where human rights, democracy and freedom of speech are a pipe dream for the average citizen. But who is to blame and what can be done to amend this situation?

While progress towards democratization in previously autocratic regions — including Africa, Latin America and parts of the Muslim world — is implemented incrementally, the Arab world has still to see a seismic change in this direction.

The West accuses Arab regimes of being responsible for the lack of transparency and accountability. The regimes in turn, supported to a significant degree by their public, point the finger at the West’s military, political and economic support of Mideast dictatorships.

Further highlighted is the punitive action taken against democratically elected but Islamic-leaning governments which do not accommodate the immediate geopolitical needs of the U.S. or Europe.

A case in point is the conservative Islamic movement Hamas winning free and fair, internationally supervised, democratic elections in 2006, elections which the U.S. and Israelis had pressured the Palestinians to hold.

Israel gave political and financial support to Hamas during its formative years, hoping the movement would serve as a bulwark against the secular Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) which was then the dominant Palestinian political movement.

But when the Islamic resistance group became too strong Israel and the Jewish state’s chief benefactor, the U.S., changed course fast.

Hamas’ landslide win was followed by an international and regional boycott on the grounds that the organization refused to recognize Israel and once in power would most likely implement an Islamic theocracy.

Critics lambasted the embargo as yet another example of Western hypocrisy and treachery similar to the support provided to the Mujahideen, the predecessors of the Taliban, in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

Once the Soviets were ousted from Afghanistan the West changed political track with its formerly convenient pre-Taliban clients.

But, argue both Palestinian and Israeli analysts, the reality is far more complex and the blame can be apportioned on both Arab regimes and their complacent people, and the West which, despite having mutual contempt, are convenient bedfellows.

“The West knows fully well that the Arab regimes it supports are undemocratic and come at the expense of human rights,” argues Samir Awad from Birzeit University near Ramallah.

“Western governments are not interested in the long-term strategy of resolving problems relating to democratization of the Mideast.”

“Their short-term strategy of paper shuffling and containing the problem takes preference as they know their respective tenures in office are short and the problems can be left to the next government,” Awad told IPS.

Additionally, having pliable Arab regimes in power which can be manipulated also suits Western geopolitical interests, especially in regard to the region’s rich oil and gas resources. Added to this is their genuine fear of Islamic fundamentalists taking power and in turn quashing all civil liberties.

However, the argument of the West being solely responsible for all the woes of the Arab world can only be carried so far.

“The Arab governments themselves do not have the political will to change. They enjoy the power, prestige and economic entitlement that come courtesy of Western patronage,” comments Awad.

The economic and political interests of the Arab elite, who underpin these regimes, are also served by Western financial and military aid, therefore, they continue in turn to lend their political support to these dictatorships.

“If these governments really wanted to introduce reform they could, just as many African and Latin American countries have moved towards democracy despite their previous regimes being supported by the Americans,” says Awad.

“There is no way the West would blanket bomb them or starve them all if they started becoming more democratic. They would probably still continue to support them in preference to what they see as extremist Islamic alternatives taking power.”

Prof. Moshe Maoz from Jerusalem’s Hebrew University concurs that singling out the U.S. as the scapegoat for the Arab world’s shortcomings is way too convenient.

“The Americans have legitimate fears of militants with an agenda to ‘overthrow the Crusaders’ to contend with. The complexity of the problem, however, varies from country to country,” Maoz told IPS.

Furthermore, the Arab street also plays a part in the failure of these regimes to reform. They could do more to pressure their governments by taking part in rallies, public demonstrations and supporting plurality, freedom of expression and gender equality, says Moaz. The ubiquitous Arab security forces could not suppress all protest.

This support for the rule of law even at the cost of basic civil liberties comes partly from decades of oppression and the fear of anarchy.

“Fundamentally the Arab public is more concerned with meeting basic needs such as education, employment and feeding their families,” says Maoz.

Political stability in poverty-stricken countries with repressive regimes such as Egypt has guaranteed the subsidization of basics such as bread as well as providing tens of thousands with employment in bloated and inefficient government bureaucracies.

However, real reform would also involve the West tying aid into political reform as well as allowing democratically elected Islamic governments to take power and run their course, argues Awad.

“Islam and democracy are not mutually exclusive. There are thriving democracies in Indonesia, Turkey and Senegal, all Muslim countries. The logical step would be to allow other moderate Islamic governments to prove themselves,” Awad told IPS.

If they turn despotic when faced with real problems this would naturally undermine their public legitimacy instead of strengthening the argument that they were never given a chance which in turn fuels real Islamic extremism.