Skip to comments.Why We Will Never See Democracy in the Middle East
Posted on 10/08/2006 7:11:46 AM PDT by Axhandle
click here to read article
I cannot agree with the author's title, but the article is very interesting nonetheless.
They've already got democracy in the Middle East. I guess this guy doesn't read the paper.
Europe was tribal, then it went to Monarchies, then it went to Democracy.
Much of the Middle East has already been in the Monarchy state for hundreds of years.
This is pure bs.
Nonsense as usual. All ready have it in Iraq and Afgainistan. More hysteria from rabid know nothings
Someone needs to show this clown where Israel and Turkey are located.
Tribalism may work well enough in areas of low population density and little travel/trade. Definitely not the stuff of civilization or high civilization. Send those that want it out into the desert with their camels, otherwise thwey should expect a different form of social organization.
Nazism reverted Europe to tribalism on a grand scale -- and we reverted it back. Tribalism is endemic to human society -- e.g., the Mafia, the Mexifornian gangs -- but it should have a minor role. Another world for tribalism is racism, and it's destructive no matter where it appears.
Bring Them Freedom, Or They Destroy Us
Real Clear Politics ^ | September 20, 2006 | Bernard Lewis
Posted on 10/06/2006 11:54:57 PM CDT by neverdem
The following is adapted from a lecture delivered by Bernard Lewis on July 16, 2006, on board the Crystal Serenity, during a Hillsdale College cruise in the British Isles.
By common consent among historians, the modern history of the Middle East begins in the year 1798, when the French Revolution arrived in Egypt in the form of a small expeditionary force led by a young general called Napoleon Bonaparte--who conquered and then ruled it for a while with appalling ease. General Bonaparte--he wasn't yet Emperor--proclaimed to the Egyptians that he had come to them on behalf of a French Republic built on the principles of liberty and equality. We know something about the reactions to this proclamation from the extensive literature of the Middle Eastern Arab world. The idea of equality posed no great problem. Equality is very basic in Islamic belief: All true believers are equal. Of course, that still leaves three "inferior" categories of people--slaves, unbelievers and women. But in general, the concept of equality was understood. Islam never developed anything like the caste system of India to the east or the privileged aristocracies of Christian Europe to the west. Equality was something they knew, respected, and in large measure practiced. But liberty was something else.
As used in Arabic at that time, liberty was not a political but a legal term: You were free if you were not a slave. The word liberty was not used as we use it in the Western world, as a metaphor for good government. So the idea of a republic founded on principles of freedom caused some puzzlement. Some years later an Egyptian sheikh--Sheikh Rifa'a Rafi' al-Tahtawi, who went to Paris as chaplain to the first group of Egyptian students sent to Europe--wrote a book about his adventures and explained his discovery of the meaning of freedom. He wrote that when the French talk about freedom they mean what Muslims mean when they talk about justice. By equating freedom with justice, he opened a whole new phase in the political and public discourse of the Arab world, and then, more broadly, the Islamic world.
Is Western-Style Freedom Transferable?
What is the possibility of freedom in the Islamic world, in the Western sense of the word? If you look at the current literature, you will find two views common in the United States and Europe. One of them holds that Islamic peoples are incapable of decent, civilized government. Whatever the West does, Muslims will be ruled by corrupt tyrants. Therefore the aim of our foreign policy should be to insure that they are our tyrants rather than someone else's--friendly rather than hostile tyrants. This point of view is very much favored in departments of state and foreign offices and is generally known, rather surprisingly, as the "pro-Arab" view. It is, of course, in no sense pro-Arab. It shows ignorance of the Arab past, contempt for the Arab present, and unconcern for the Arab future. The second common view is that Arab ways are different from our ways. They must be allowed to develop in accordance with their cultural principles, but it is possible for them--as for anyone else, anywhere in the world, with discreet help from outside and most specifically from the United States--to develop democratic institutions of a kind. This view is known as the "imperialist" view and has been vigorously denounced and condemned as such.
In thinking about these two views, it is helpful to step back and consider what Arab and Islamic society was like once and how it has been transformed in the modern age. The idea that how that society is now is how it has always been is totally false. The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or the Assad family in Syria or the more friendly dictatorship of Mubarak in Egypt--all of these have no roots whatsoever in the Arab or in the Islamic past. Let me quote to you from a letter written in 1786--three years before the French Revolution--by Mssr. Count de Choiseul-Gouffier, the French ambassador in Istanbul, in which he is trying to explain why he is making rather slow progress with the tasks entrusted to him by his government in dealing with the Ottoman government. "Here," he says, "things are not as in France where the king is sole master and does as he pleases." "Here," he says, "the sultan has to consult." He has to consult with the former holders of high offices, with the leaders of various groups and so on. And this is a slow process. This scenario is something radically different than the common image of Middle Eastern government today. And it is a description that ceased to be true because of a number of changes that occurred.
Let's spend a moment or two defining what we mean by freedom and democracy. There is a view sometimes expressed that "democracy" means the system of government evolved by the English-speaking peoples. Any departure from that is either a crime to be punished or a disease to be cured. I beg to differ from that point of view. Different societies develop different ways of conducting their affairs, and they do not need to resemble ours. And let us remember, after all, that American democracy after the War of Independence was compatible with slavery for three-quarters of a century and with the disenfranchisement of women for longer than that. Democracy is not born like the Phoenix. It comes in stages, and the stages and processes of development will differ from country to country, from society to society. The French cherish the curious illusion that they invented democracy, but since the great revolution of 1789, they have had two monarchies, two empires, two dictatorships, and at the last count, five republics. And I'm not sure that they've got it right yet.
There are, as I've tried to point out, elements in Islamic society which could well be conducive to democracy. And there are encouraging signs at the present moment--what happened in Iraq, for example, with millions of Iraqis willing to stand in line to vote, knowing that they were risking their lives, is a quite extraordinary achievement. It shows great courage, great resolution. Don't be misled by what you read in the media about Iraq. The situation is certainly not good, but there are redeeming features in it. The battle isn't over. It's still very difficult. There are still many major problems to overcome. There is a bitter anti-Western feeling which derives partly and increasingly from our support for what they see as tyrannies ruling over them. It's interesting that pro-American feeling is strongest in countries with anti-American governments. I've been told repeatedly by Iranians that there is no country in the world where pro-American feeling is stronger, deeper and more widespread than Iran. I've heard this from so many different Iranians--including some still living in Iran--that I believe it. When the American planes were flying over Afghanistan, the story was that many Iranians put signs on their roofs in English reading, "This way, please."
So there is a good deal of pro-Western and even specifically pro-American feeling. But the anti-American feeling is strongest in those countries that are ruled by what we are pleased to call "friendly governments." And it is those, of course, that are the most tyrannical and the most resented by their own people. The outlook at the moment is, I would say, very mixed. I think that the cause of developing free institutions--along their lines, not ours--is possible. One can see signs of its beginning in some countries. At the same time, the forces working against it are very powerful and well entrenched. And one of the greatest dangers is that on their side, they are firm and convinced and resolute. Whereas on our side, we are weak and undecided and irresolute. And in such a combat, it is not difficult to see which side will prevail.
I think that the effort is difficult and the outcome uncertain, but I think the effort must be made. Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us.
Bernard Lewis is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University.
We will not find the way to contest him, let alone defeat him, until we see the struggle against him within the greater context of this millenia-old, unaltering, East-West war.
If you believe wars are to be won -- through the defeat of enemies -- then there is a solution.
And yeah, if it works, the rest of the ME should become "Israel". Waiting for lib heads to explode...
Not sure what you mean by "it". If you mean democracy, it's at best a very fragile seed planted in both places and not yet taken root. If / when the U.S. pulls out of either country, I see democracy going out the door in less than a year.
The general understanding in Afghanistan is that Karzai is the mayor of Kabul... not the leader of the country. In Iraq, most of Baghdad remains outside of the control purportedly rendered from the Green Zone. Tribalism still dominates both countries. Afghanistan has the Tajik Northern Alliance and most of the rest of the country is Pashtun (Taliban). Even among those groups you have subgroups (i.e., sub tribes) run by warlords / opium growers / smugglers. As for Iraq, where to start? Kurds in the North, Sunnis, Shia. All tribes.
I remember hearing a quote once that illustrates the Arab tribal mindset (and I paraphrase) - "My country against your country, my tribe against your tribe, my town against your town, my family against your family, me against you." The tribe goes all the way down to the man.
Just a little non-tribal dissent for thought.
All it takes to make a tribal society into a "democracy" is a few committed individuals within the tribe to force the issue...and the majority of the rest of the tribe will respond to the offer of freedom.
It is my thought that the movement to cities and growth of cities will overcome the tribal allegiences that are territorial.
Fathers and uncles are tribal, sons and cousins in cities pay lipservice. Grandsons forget about it altogether.
If you really think about this article, there is a lot of truth in it. Sure there are ME democracies, of which only one is remotely civilized, Israel. But the Sunnis are a sort of tribe, as are the Shia, the Kurds, the Turks, the Persians, the Afghan warlords, Somali warlords, Sudani militias etc. They really don't care about the welfare of others outside their groups. They kill and do what is best to put their group in power. The entire West is just the Others, merely pawns to obliterate and eventually take their land.
The Others will eventually have to come together as a supertribe. That will get their respect.
This is the typical leftwing tripe that endangers the West.
First the author states:
"Tribalism and the tribal mind-set are what the West is up against in Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, the Iraqi insurgency, the Sunni and Shiite militias, and the Taliban."
Then his describes:
"The tribesman does not operate by a body of civil law but by a code of honor. If he receives a wrong, he does not seek redress. He wants revenge. The taking of revenge is a virtue in tribal eyes, called badal in the Pathan code of nangwali. A man who does not take revenge is not a man. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the sectarian militias of Iraq are not in the war business, they are in the revenge business. The revenge-seeker cannot be negotiated with because his intent is bound up with honor. It is an absolute."
Then, in typical anti-west leftwing fashion he concludes that this type of behavior is morally eqivalent to the American/Western form form of democratic government:
"The tribesman isn't 'wrong' or 'evil.' He just doesn't want what we're selling."
The irony here is that while the author is trying to be non-judgmental, he is basically saying mid-easterners are mentally incapable of democratic government. It took Americans nearly 150 years from first setting foot in Jamestown to revolt and start the beginings of a democratic gov't. It took another 10 years after the Revolutionary War to establish a true federal government and a Constitution. Why do we expect Iraqis to do it over night. I think THAT is what is unrealistic.
That's all I needed to see.
Steven needs to take a little tour of the Middle East. He might find a couple of new democracies if he did.
Israel and Iraq prove that abc just can't get any story correct. Do they try to lie, or is it just such a natural act for such low-lifes!?
No racism here...
Sonds more like he's been reading Kipling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.