WHILE THE crowds of the Cedar Revolution were chanting “freedom and democracy” in the squares and streets of Beirut, another revolution that will go much further in reshaping the Middle East has gone unnoticed.

Saudis have been queueing over the past few weeks to vote in the first elections in the oil-rich kingdom. To be sure, the exercise in Saudi Arabia is not a model of democracy. The elections concerned only half of the 1,200 seats in the municipal councils, with the other half going to government appointees. Worse still, women were not allowed to vote, let alone stand for election. Some liberal Saudis dismiss the exercise as too little, too late; a manoeuvre to ease pressure from Washington.

Nevertheless, bearing in mind the events in the kingdom over the past few weeks, these elections represent an historic event.

There are several reasons for this. First, a big taboo has been broken. Until a year ago all talk of elections was regarded as sacrilegious. Conservatives argue that Muslim societies do not need elections because they have the tradition of shoura or consultation. This means that the “benevolent despot” consults those with expertise and then takes the best decision. The idea of elections, with competing opinions and candidates, punctures that doctrine. Elections are an at least implicit recognition of the basic principles of democracy: that citizens are entitled to a say in decisions that concern their lives. Unsurprisingly, religious conservatives denounced the elections as a sign that “the disease of democracy” is spreading to the heartland of Islam. They quote an Arab proverb: “When the head of the camel enters the tent, the rest is bound to follow.”

The second reason why the Saudi exercise is important is that it has revealed no significant popular opposition to the elections. The fear that Islamists would use elections to widen their following has proved groundless. Most Saudis seem to like elections and, far from complaining, look set to ask for more. That elections are popular is illustrated by the fact that it has drawn candidates from all generations, the oldest being 91 and the youngest 25, and all backgrounds.

The third point is that these elections offer the first glimpse of an enfranchised Saudi middle class, operating free of the constraints and confines of traditional tribal politics. Much has been written about these new middle classes, transformed from poverty-stricken desert-dwellers to wealthy citizens of modern metropolises within two generations. But this is the first time that we have seen what happens when they are offered a share in political power.

Last but not least, the elections have enriched the Saudi political vocabulary. Here are some of the new words and phrases never heard in the kingdom even a year ago: elections, campaigning, canvassing, public opinion surveys, focus groups, debates, platforms, voting, candidates, voters, polling station, ballot paper, ballot box, monitors, transparency, accountability, reform and renovation.

Despite misgivings by some pundits in the West, the Saudi experience shows that Arab elections do not necessarily lead to victory for Islamists. In the Saudi elections, like earlier elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, radical Islamists hardly registered on the radar. Of the 600 seats at stake in the Saudi elections, only seven went to known Islamists. The bulk of the seats were won by Western-educated businessmen, academics, lawyers, doctors, or journalists, plus some tribal elder figures. In some areas such as Jizan, for example, most of the seats were won by university professors.

Change in Saudi Arabia is bound to be tortuous and slow. But even this conservative society is being drawn into the Middle East’s new political pattern. That pattern began to take shape with the destruction of the Taleban in Kabul and the Baathists in Baghdad. The Afghan and Iraqi regimes represented the two grand ideas, Islamism and pan-Arab nationalism, that dominated the politics of the region since the 1960s. Now united in Iraq in what looks like their last desperate stand, these evil twins know that the spread of freedom will administer them the coup de grâce.

This year, several events will further shape this pattern. These include the first multicandidate presidential elections in Egypt and Yemen, and the first Lebanese elections in 30 years without the baleful presence of Syrian tanks.

But no one should be starry-eyed about the dawn of democracy in the Middle East. There are many historic, cultural and religious barriers to progress and the region still includes despotic regimes — such as Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Syria, and Iran — that are frozen in time. Nevertheless, there is, for the first time in perhaps a century, with the impending death of Islamism and pan-Arabism, a chance that freedom could emerge as the big idea in Middle Eastern politics.

Next week those in the West who opposed the liberation of Iraq will mark the second anniversary of the war with marches and rallies. It is unlikely that any of the newly elected leaders of Afghanistan and Iraq or of the Lebanese Cedar Revolution will be invited to address the “Western street” as it laments the demise of the Taleban and Saddam Hussein. But in the “Arab street” the talk is of freedom and democracy. It would be good if the “Western street” supported that with as much enthusiasm as it fought to prevent the demise of Mullah Muhammad Omar and Saddam Hussein.

Amir Taheri is an Iranian commentator and author

Times Recommends

• Fundamentalist brew: faith and power
• Big guns wheeled out for the marginals
• Wanted: new merchants of light