I think he's right to predict that this isn't the end of troubles and that these countries are not going to just now be liberal western democracies. But, he talks about the Algerian experience as if it were a failure and isn't any further along than it was in 1960. I don't that's true. We've seen in the development of western democracy that we've had to go through a lot of upheaval to be rid of the ancien regime and build the democracy we now have. Look at France, which is now on its 5th Republic. Ten years after the French Revolution, they returned to dictatorship with Napoleon. Four years after the Revolution of 1848, Napoleon III was made emperor. These things aren't made in a day. And while there is a western democratic archtype to look at, they can't build western democracies in North Africa because they are not Western. They are Islamic. They need a modernized, legitimate, representative, efficacious form of government that is consistent with their Islamic identity. I think it's a fool's errand to think you can just secularize everything and make every country in the world a western democracy. You have to accomodate and shape the culture that is already there.
He's caught up the myth that governments that claim to be secular are to always be defended. Bin Ali banned head scarves after all. He helped us on the war on terror. That's enough to forgive his brutal and corrupt government. Same with Mubarak. Same with Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen. There's a reason why many of these regimes claim to be the "secular" alternative to what will otherwise become some crazy Saudi style religious oligarchy. Because it sells pretty well to people like ATW. And people that think his way make up much of the diplomatic and political establishment in places like the US.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I do get your meaning about the church having one head at the time, which obviously was the pope, but there were lots of cultural sects that took matters into their own hands with the popes blessing, or with their own interpetation. My main point was that if they try to create a country where the rule of law is based on the mythology of religion ie Islam, it will ultimately lead to theocratic rule that is as bad or worse for the people anyway. I do agree you have got to account for the culture over there, but the point of democracy is not to protect the majority, it is to treat everyone equally even the minorities...the same rights. Theocracies do not allow for that, they have their own agenda - which is the spread of their mythos.... Ultimately that leads to far worse consequences and restrictions for their people. Tunisia is more educated, they probably stand the best chance of getting out of this with a stable country, but I think the rest are going to struggle for awhile. DD
Honestly. This seems less about religion than a cultural shift Basically . . . it is like saying. . the best thing for the Arab community is . .. to take a majority of the culture scoop it out and replace it with Western Cultural ideals Gender Roles Interactions Morality etc. It is one thing for them to organically grow it is another to try and remove it and put in another one. Your Ethnicity is more than your genetics. If you lose your whole culture and adapt another when your whole society adapt another culture then your ethnicity is truly dead. You are not ______, you are just a ______ with different skin tone. I am often wary of such cultural valuations and recommendations The ARAB SPRING will need to figure out how to live equitably within its OWN framework . .. and not what is should look like through western eyes. They should define their SPRING . . . and not work it to appease the ideals of OTHERS who are NOT THEM. Rocket River
My guess is we'll see Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya develop into some sort of hybrid between democracy and modern ideals mixed with traditional ethics and laws. In the end, we'll have a byproduct satisfying neither extremists or Westerners; but one that will ultimately satisfy the people of the Middle East.
I tend to agree with you here, it is just that the Middle East is 100 or so years behind the west, they will get there, and technology will help speed it along, but we are all headed to the same place eventually. DD
Evolutionary change is is less disruptive than revolutionary change. People are scared of the unknown and trust the status quo even if it is bearably bad. If you just set up a mechanism of change and give it time, things will change. And, what do you base your rule of law on? A lot of theocratic rules are just, common laws that promote basic civilized behavior. It's the instilling of law as standards of general behavior that's really hard, but one good way to do it is evoke God or gods, the unexplained mysteries looming for everyone, greater powers. Historically it has worked better than sloganeering. The intellectual appeal can work but it takes an egalitarian, educated population with a lot of economic opportunity and a lot of police. And of course the tried and true tyrant and fuedal system.
Mathloom, not sure why you seem to be so angry. I think we are having a civil discussion here. Not sure what to respond to your rants.
100 years behind, but on a very different journey, so the same solution that worked for others, won't necessarily work for the Middle East. Also, 100 years behind is a massive exaggeration IMO. It wasn't until 40-50 years ago that societies in the Middle East were functioning as democratically as you would expect them to be (IMO still below average). It's only when dictators were forcefully installed that it went into reverse and now the Middle East is near the last in the world, and easily the worst among developing or developed countries. That's a massive shift, can not be natural/organic IMO.
You don't have to, I wasn't targetting you specifically except to the extent that I think your views are in a similar vein as a larger population of people who have ideologies that I consider abhorrent. To prioritise the risk that the future leader might be a higher threat towards you than a a guy who has murdered your people, my people, and his people with other people's money.... I don't understand how you can do that given that you've been following these conflicts relatively closely as far as I can tell. It possibly shows a lot of ignorance towards what these people have endured to get to where they are. The fact that we are far removed from these things makes it easy for us to say some things - don't forget that these people have lost thousands of family members and friends, relative to the small population of Libya (5m I think?). We ought to mourn for those people, because those people are the casualties of the same fight for human rights that we are so constantly yapping about and not say somethign so disrespectful as "there is a SERIOUS chance you guys MIGHT end up being worse than Gaddhafi!!".
What do you have to say about the Islamists' intolerant attacks on freedom in Tunisia and other places that are popping up more frequently now (like the three sample cases I quoted from news media in a previous post)? That seems to be leading down the path of where one is in Pakistan now (in a more extreme form). You consider my views "abhorrent"? Or those of the guy who gave the interview? But no comment on these Islamists' violent attacks on freedom? Interesting.
No one supports those things, it goes without saying. This is a period of instability which the country accepted as a condition of revolution. They factored the risk into it, it's well worth it. Many other countries, including your own, would be fighting rebels and insurgents and whatever you want to call them from the Extremist Islamic side if they were in this very political state. The only thing is, the last time your country was in this political state, it was a different ideology causing these kinds of problems (whichever one was dominant at the time). Think about Israeli terrorist organizations just before the establishment of Israel who later on transferred into various organs of Israeli government. Are those organisations now terrorists or are they legitimate organisations? Same thing here. People who share these beliefs will have a voice, and the violent ones will be incarcerated in the exact same way that the rest of the civilized world does... all in time.
Apparently, many support the Islamist party - they got the most votes in Tunisia. Not if the country moves more towards what is happening under Islamist influence in Pakistan, in Saudi-Arabia and in some pockets of Indonesia, and in some other countries. "Religious police", "blasphemy laws", restrictions on freedom of speech, violent attacks against people of other beliefs, etc. Don't you see that the intolerance by the Islamists who attack a university, a movie theater and a TV station is fueled by the same ignorance and common theme as the intolerance displayed in Pakistan with its "blasphemy laws"? If this continues, it's a dangerous path. Separation of church and state would be the best thing for all these countries (for any country). Unfortunately, they seem to be heading down the opposite direction.
Oh and, no, he is not caught up in that myth since he is a visibly avid supporter of the Israeli government/cause. He has even questioned in the past Palestinians' resistance to recognizing a non-secular Jewish democracy which steals lands from them every single day for the purposes of their own religion... therefore he can't claim that he consistently aligns with western secular values. He can, on the other hand, claim that he seems to be fairly consistently aligned with the ideology which can vaguely be described as the position of the "Western Right" towards the Middle East. Which is, anything which bans veils, burqas, reduces the visibility of Islam, reduces the scope of Islam, possibly bans the Quran, shows disrespect toward Muslim peoples' religious beliefs, acceptability of a high level of collateral damage in the pursuit of what they define as Islamism, persistent support of puppet dictators in the face of human rights, still complain about human rights in those countries, etc etc. Essentially, these beliefs are hugely similar to those of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders if you want to do some research - from what little I know of ATW, his opinions seem to mirror those of this guy very closely much of the time. To put it broadly, illusion of democracy at home, protected by oppression and corruption outside, and basically everyone who recently arrived in the country should leave unless they are happy to be grouped into
Mathloom, another ATW-obsessed rant of self-victimization and defamatory remarks where you make up positions that are supposedly mine...in your head. Stop trying to make this thread about me. I think the gentleman who points out the danger that Islamists hijack the revolutions in Arab countries has a very good point. Discuss that, not me. Yes What exactly do you mean? No No Collateral damage? WTF? What?
I wouldnt be so sure. Although I dont doubt that many people have bought into looking at the world through western political ideals, I dont believe the entire political or diplomatic establishment in the US has. If you look at the Constitution of Iraq, which the US helped draft, it states explicitly that "Islam is the state religion and a basic foundation for the country's laws, and no law may contradict the established provisions of Islam." Regardless of how meaningful that statement ends up being in real terms, it shows that there's at least some faction of the political establishment that understands governance in other countries has to take place on their terms, not ours. I think da_juice said it best- the end solution will most likely be a compromise that wont satisfy either side, be they islamists or westerners.
If it's a constitution they need to allow for adaptation, Muslim for now, individual rights later expanded by amendment, no litmus test for election. The structure has to be by agreement with the people not decree to the people. Of course it will be Muslim. It's not like they purged their entire 700 year old social order. Where has that ever happened?
Exactly, their cultural beliefs (Islam) will be prevelant, things do not change that quickly. Even Christianity stole from it's previous religions to make the transition easier for folks. DD
