Democracy in the Middle East? Careful what you wish.

[Wayne Grabert]

Here is an interesting article. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8222-2003Mar21.html)
There were two striking results in an opinion survey conducted earlier this month by Zogby International in six Arab countries -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon.

One was that a huge majority of people in those countries said that, if given the choice, they would like their Islamic clergy to play roles bigger than the subservient ones currently prescribed by most Arab governments.

Equally impressive, less than 6 percent of those polled believed that the United States was waging its campaign in Iraq to create a more democratic Arab or Muslim world. Close to 95 percent were convinced that the United States was after control of Arab oil and the subjugation of the Palestinians to Israel's will. The survey, commissioned by University of Maryland professor Shibley Telhami, also showed that overwhelming margins said that terrorism was going to increase, rather than decrease, as a result of the U.S.-led invasion.

President Bush has said that the invasion of Iraq, and the establishment of a new government there, would be a "catalyst" for change in the region. But what kind of change? Rather than leading to liberal, pro-Western democracy, as Bush suggests, the war in Iraq is likely to bring only more radical Islamic fundamentalism. After all, the Islamic fundamentalist parties, grouped under the big tent of the Muslim Brotherhood, are the only forces with the organization, capability and ambition to take power if democracy were to become an option in the Arab world.

(snip)

The [Egyptian] president [Mubarak] paused, and jabbing his finger at me, said, "When your Americans talk about democracy in the Middle East, who do they think is going to take over? Democrats?" It will be the Muslim Brotherhood's pawns in Cairo, Amman, Riyadh and Palestine, Mubarak asserted.

Mubarak has reason to be concerned. Given sentiments in the Arab world today, democracy could lead to one-time elections and the triumph of radical Islam. It happened in Algeria in 1992, forcing the army there to void the election results and resume its rotten dictatorial rule. Civil war there has claimed more than 100,000 lives.

Everywhere you look in the Middle East and the Muslim world, including places such as Pakistan and Indonesia, fundamentalism is rising, thanks to the social services, medical care and religious education that Islamic groups provide as an alternative to the failed services of failed states.

(snip)

The rising power of radical Islam is driven by two forces. One is anger that the bankrupt states of the Muslim and Arab world have offered nothing better than the sort of repression Assad's father, Hafez Assad, delivered for years. The other is deep mistrust of U.S. intentions and policies toward Palestinians, Iraqis and Muslims in general -- before and, more so, after Sept. 11. In surveys conducted over the past two years, Arabs and Muslims describe the Palestinian issue as very important, indeed not central to their antagonistic attitude toward the United States.

There is little question Arab and Muslim regimes are contributing to what I believe will be their ultimate demise by running on empty. While Islamic militants have no genuine social program -- except the empty slogan of "Islam is the solution" -- the governments repressing them don't have programs either. Instead the governments have tolerated corruption and grave social neglect. Democracy is the last thing on the minds of either side. Radical fundamentalists believe it is positively anti-Islamic. Present governments are not prepared to depart.

Above all, hardly anyone in the Middle East believes the Bush administration gives a hoot about it either. I recall a dinner last spring given by a senior Saudi prince at the plush Globe restaurant in Riyadh on top of the Faisaliyah towers, just after Bush called Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "a man of peace." My host, a graduate of UCLA, looked at me and asked, "Is that how your American pals are planning to make friends in this region?" He was speaking of his American pals, too.

So maybe those know-it-all neoconservatives who never listen to anyone outside their insular circle have miscalculated?

[neutrino_cannon]

It seems nobody trusts the big invading army anymore.

[Jim_MDP]

Yeah, we have an ongoing PR problem there. I'd like to see some of our dropped pamphlets tell...No Israelis are coming... No, we're not here to take over...etc.

I wish we could do something quick for Basar and Umm Qasr, before starvation sets in. If we can't hand out aid safely on the ground, I wish we could parachute tens of thousands of MREs and thousands of little bottles of water across the cities.

Yes, on first blush it sounds silly. The image is even comical. My concern is that the remaining soldiers/combatants weren't able to grab up any normal large container drops and withhold them from the general population.

Comical or not...efficient or not, I'd try. It couldn't possible push the overall cost appreciable higher.

Oh well, back to coming up with silly ideas.
:(

-
Best wishes to our troops and hope for the Iraqis future.
Jim.
-

edit to say...Turns out Basra is 6-7 times the size I had thought. So much for that idea. :(
-

I have said this over and over again. Islam and Democracy are not compatible. The whole "exporting democracy to the middle east" thing is a fantasy the dumb Americans indulge in because they do not understand the rest of the world. If you give the Arabs democracy they are very likely to vote for Islamic theocracy. The Americans have been told this many times by many people, but they are incapable of listening. :(

[Hellcat]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I have said this over and over again. Islam and Democracy are not compatible. The whole "exporting democracy to the middle east" thing is a fantasy the dumb Americans indulge in because they do not understand the rest of the world. If you give the Arabs democracy they are very likely to vote for Islamic theocracy. The Americans have been told this many times by many people, but they are incapable of listening. :(

As I am not so clued up on the subject of politics of the Middle Eastern culture, UCE would you mind just explaining to me why this would be so?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I have said this over and over again. Islam and Democracy are not compatible. The whole "exporting democracy to the middle east" thing is a fantasy the dumb Americans indulge in because they do not understand the rest of the world. If you give the Arabs democracy they are very likely to vote for Islamic theocracy. The Americans have been told this many times by many people, but they are incapable of listening. :(


Well I know I have said this before. there is no significant body of evidence to suggest that the US foreign policy towards Iraq is to enforce democracy. Any form of benign and stable government would be fine. Surly that most accords with US sensibilities - as long as the people are happy with the form of government in place democracy is served.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Most reports and essays I read suggest that Democracy is failure until and such a time that Capatilism has provided an large stable base of middle-class citizens not depending on the government. These citizens, by their due wealth, provide education and hence create a large stable base of educated people not depending on the government. Then and only then is when Democracy is a good plan. This way the government must be dependant on the people.

So it is best if we attempt to give wealth, free trade, and entrepreneurship to the Iraqis.

[DanishDynamite]

UCE:I have said this over and over again. Islam and Democracy are not compatible. You can't be this categorical. What about Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey?

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I have said this over and over again. Islam and Democracy are not compatible. The whole "exporting democracy to the middle east" thing is a fantasy the dumb Americans indulge in because they do not understand the rest of the world. If you give the Arabs democracy they are very likely to vote for Islamic theocracy. The Americans have been told this many times by many people, but they are incapable of listening. :(

What, so no other democracy in the world wants to spread democracy? Only dumb Americans?

[Soapy Sam]

It may be worth bearing in mind that the only (self styled) "western" democracy in the middle east has a record of belligerent and persistent interference with all of it's neighbours and a policy of apartheid against many of the people within it's self designated borders.
It is not Islamic.
(Though as a sceptic and atheist, I see little of sense in any of the big 3 Semitic religions.)

Democracy is only a good system if the majority votes for a belief in reality.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
It may be worth bearing in mind that the only (self styled) "western" democracy in the middle east has a record of belligerent and persistent interference with all of it's neighbours and a policy of apartheid against many of the people within it's self designated borders.
It is not Islamic.
(Though as a sceptic and atheist, I see little of sense in any of the big 3 Semitic religions.)

Democracy is only a good system if the majority votes for a belief in reality.

Agreed and hence the reports documenting that capatalism, or some form of economy that allows large & educated middle class, is a prerequisite to democracy.

[Crossbow]

Well of course the US wants a Iraq that is democratic, that is sooo sweet!

However, the US also wants Iraq to be allied with the US and be at least neutral to Israel;
but the US would also like it if Iraq would respect the Kurds and Shities but not give them their own country or too much influence in the internal affairs of Iraq;
but of course the US definitely does not want Iraq to become allied with Iran and/or support terrorist activities;
but the US also wants Iraq to sell vast amounts of their oil at a good price;
but it is also important that the Iraq government be stable so that US does not have to leave a garrison in the country or come back in a few years to sort things out.

Yeah, I think that about sums up the major issues.

Now then, I am the only one who sees some real conflicts between these many desires?

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
UCE: You can't be this categorical. What about Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey?

Well, Indonesia and Turkey both suffer from serious problems regarding the implementation of democracy in their countries. Indonesia has many groups of armed islamic militants causing untold disruption. Turkey may be democratic but still operates in ways that are found unacceptable to the European mainstream, which is partly why they remain outside the EU. I know less about Malaysia.

Le Fevre :


What, so no other democracy in the world wants to spread democracy? Only dumb Americans?


Oh I am sure there are naive people all over the place who think democracy can be imposed on the middle east. Americans seem to suffer from a particular problem whereby they think everywhere else wants to be like America, and this includes exporting democracy. That is what JK means when he talks of "promoting the idea of America to the world". People may want American wealth. I'm not sure they are all that interested in anything else America has to offer.

Crossbow :

In other words America has a long list of its own wants and needs. The needs of the Iraqi people are very much secondary, and will only be respected if it suits the Americans. The dumb thing is that the Iraqi people understand this only too well (even if the American people do not), which is partly why they are not welcoming the invaders as liberators.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam


Democracy is only a good system if the majority votes for a belief in reality.

You prefer a King? (er, well, Queen).

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I have said this over and over again. Islam and Democracy are not compatible. The whole "exporting democracy to the middle east" thing is a fantasy the dumb Americans indulge in because they do not understand the rest of the world. If you give the Arabs democracy they are very likely to vote for Islamic theocracy. The Americans have been told this many times by many people, but they are incapable of listening. :(


So true...

As for Turkey and Indonesia. These are not democracies.

The turkish PM Erdogan, needed 6 months before he could take-over the seat of PM...

He was convicted by a court of law, for reading in public... an old muslim poem...while he was the mayor of Instabul...

Both countries, Indonesia and Turkey are on the top of the list of Amnestry International for violating human rights.

I wonder. When our American friends say that they want to imply democracy,do they mean the system, or the american corporate interests ...

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Oh I am sure there are naive people all over the place who think democracy can be imposed on the middle east.
UCE, I think it would be more accurate to say that democracy is incompatible with religious fundamentalism of any sort. Not all Muslims are fundies. Not all fundies are Muslim.

In Iran, there is growing support for regime change to democracy. (Iran, then called Persia, had democracy in the early 1950's till the CIA and the British intelligence forces orchestrated the overthrow of that democracy, had its prime minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq assassinated, and reinstalled the Shah in 1953.) However, the supporters of democracy in Iran do not want the help (they call it "interference") of the United States. They do not trust the United States. Given their history with the U.S., this is understandable. A democratic Iran would still be an anti-American Iran.

In Maureen Dowd's most recent column, (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/abs_news_body.asp?section=Opinion&oid=18952) she quotes Richard Perle as saying last week to his neoconservative co-conspirators that there may soon be "regime change" in Iran without any military action by the U.S. I just wonder whether they (the neo-cons) will have that much patience.

I agree that it is foolish to try to impose democracy from the outside. Some may say, "well, it worked in Japan," but the reality of Japan is that its democracy has been mostly window dressing. The real government has been the bureacracy, such as METI, (http://www.meti.go.jp/english/) but (in accordance with Rusty's points) there is no reason that I can come up with to think that Japan's democracy won't become more robust, especially when it becomes more independent of the United States.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Crossbow

Now then, I am the only one who sees some real conflicts between these many desires?
No, but you are not a policy maker in the Bush League Administration.

Good post.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by JamesMGMDP
...

I wish we could do something quick for Basar and Umm Qasr, before starvation sets in. If we can't hand out aid safely on the ground, I wish we could parachute tens of thousands of MREs and thousands of little bottles of water across the cities.

Yes, on first blush it sounds silly. The image is even comical. My concern is that the remaining soldiers/combatants weren't able to grab up any normal large container drops and withhold them from the general population.

Comical or not...efficient or not, I'd try. It couldn't possible push the overall cost appreciable higher.

Oh well, back to coming up with silly ideas.
:(Given your avatar and location, why does it not surprise me that you came up with this idea.

Walt

[PogoPedant]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
(...)
In Iran, there is growing support for regime change to democracy. (Iran, then called Persia, had democracy in the early 1950's till the CIA and the British intelligence forces orchestrated the overthrow of that democracy, had its prime minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq assassinated, and reinstalled the Shah in 1953.) (...)
They also had a brief (eight months I think) Constitutional Democracy way back in the early ninteenhundreds. It was crushed by russian forces, backed by brits, and the shah was reinstated. (A pattern, perhaps?)

[Jim_MDP]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Given your avatar and location, why does it not surprise me that you came up with this idea.

Walt

First, I logged on to edit my post. Turns out Basra is 6-7 times the size I had thought. So much for that idea. :(

Second...I've had that avatar and tag up here and elsewhere for several months. It had and has nothing to do with this war. Something back then reminded me I have a Norden from my late father and so I tracked down an image. It's a stunning piece of computing tech.

But considering my thoughts on what to drop, don't you think your assumtion is a little off the mark?

-
Friggin' one letter typo. What a pisser. :(

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot
Most reports and essays I read suggest that Democracy is failure until and such a time that Capatilism has provided an large stable base of middle-class citizens not depending on the government. These citizens, by their due wealth, provide education and hence create a large stable base of educated people not depending on the government. Then and only then is when Democracy is a good plan. This way the government must be dependant on the people.

So it is best if we attempt to give wealth, free trade, and entrepreneurship to the Iraqis.

Iraq has a large middle class. And they are well educated. And as for wealth, well, the world's second largest oil deposits.

Sometimes it seems that some of the detractors on this board would be seriously disappointed if all went well in Iraq.

[schplurg]

Luke T:
Sometimes it seems that some of the detractors on this board would be seriously disappointed if all went well in Iraq.
I agree. When someone's first post on a thread contains phrases like "Dumb Americans" it kinda shows their true colors. Their whole point becomes negated to me when I see this stuff, along with their sweeping generalizations. Sometimes the messenger DOES ruin the message itself. But hey, I'm the new guy here, so I'll keep my "Dumb American" opinions on these a-holes to myself.

Oops.