View Full Version : Western foreign policy, when push comes to shove: Democracy sacrificed for Stability?
al Roumi
01-06-2011, 15:19
Given the current self-flagelation elsewhere on the forum and members decrying the dearth of new, fresh discussions, here is something I've not seen discussed here -and from a fresh angle.
Acknowledging political Islam
The US has historically supported suppressive secular regimes in the Middle East, a policy with obvious shortcomings.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the Democratic opposition going against incumbent Hosni Mubarak in the upcoming elections, has catalogued the rights violations committed by the Egyptian regime. But when push comes to shove, would Western nations really support him if it meant Islamists in the periphery gaining more power?
"Regimes that fight, survive."
The words were those of a senior member of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the "house" think-tank of AIPAC, the pro-Israel US lobbying organisation. Spoken at a scholarly conference in 1992, they were meant as a reproach to people like me, who argued that an ageing generation of autocratic leaders in the Middle East risked facilitating the rise of a wave of violent, anti-democratic Islamists unless they were willing to accommodate the aspirations of the seemingly more democratically-inclined Islamists in their midst.
A movement to which we referred in those days as "political Islam" was gaining momentum throughout the region, and there was much disagreement among Western scholars and government practitioners as to how - or indeed whether - to accommodate it. The language of political opposition in the region, then as now, was overwhelmingly Islamic; the question was whether there were any useful distinctions to be made among the various Islamist currents, and whether any would permanently accept a democratic model - or instead adhere, as many feared, to a doctrine of "one man, one vote, one time."
Choosing suppression over justice
WINEP, then as now, was generally representative of right-leaning political opinion in Israel, and this case was no exception. One of the more influential voices from that quarter belonged to Binyamin Netanyahu, who argued at the time that there was a clear alignment of interests between Israel and the secular regimes of the surrounding Arab states.
The Islamist trends beginning to menace the latter were echoed in newly-ascendant Islamic-inspired Palestinian organisations such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which posed the greatest threat to Israel. The secular Arab regimes, according to this line of thinking, should therefore find it in their interest to make peace with Israel and isolate the Islamists, both in Palestine and elsewhere, rather than allowing Islamic oppositionists to exploit a growing identification between Islam and Arab nationalism, and to use popular anti-Israeli sentiment to engulf both Israel and the Arab regimes alike.
Therefore, my WINEP friend argued - in suitably coded language - the Arab regimes should employ against the Islamists the repression so successfully employed by Israel in thwarting the Palestinians' popular resistance to occupation during the first Intifada: "Regimes that fight, survive."
The issues of the day were most starkly represented in Algeria, where a moderate Islamist opposition led by the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) had made rapid democratic inroads, only to be brutally repressed in early 1992 by the Algerian army, just when it was on the verge of winning an overwhelming majority in the Algerian National Assembly. The muted response of the US and other Western powers to this military coup gave testament to their fear of the Islamist wave, and the primacy in their thinking of practical over ideological considerations.
Whatever their pro-democratic rhetoric, when faced with a choice between the ascension of religiously conservative Arab nationalists overtly opposed to US policy in the region on the one hand, and repression on the other, the West was prepared to support repression. My friend from WINEP, no doubt, approved.
The elusive promise of stability
Appalled at the time by what I regarded as a pusillanimous and hypocritical US policy, my dissenting view was based not just on moral, but on practical criteria. I did not believe that support for democracy should only be bestowed on those democrats favourable to us. More pointedly, however, it seemed to me that the Arab masses, if denied the opportunity for political recourse through democratic means, would turn instead to revolutionary forces who embraced a far more radical and violent conception of Islam.
And indeed, such was the path immediately taken in Algeria. With the moderate, democratic Islamist opposition imprisoned or otherwise neutralised by the regime, its place was assumed by far more radical, Takfiri elements, represented by the GSPC. Algeria descended into a cauldron of almost unimaginable violence, which was ultimately to claim as many as 200,000 lives.
All this came back to mind recently in response to an op-ed penned in the US press by Mohamed ElBaradei, former Director-General of the IAEA, and now the putative head of Egypt's democratic opposition. In it he catalogues the many abuses perpetrated by the Mubarak regime during the just-concluded Egyptian parliamentary elections, and decries the policies of Mubarak and his cronies in the NDP and the security forces not just on moral grounds, but on practical ones as well. Their tactics, he asserts, carry with them the ultimate threat of revolution, and should therefore draw the active opposition of the West: "The rights of the Egyptian people," he says, "should not be trampled in exchange for an elusive promise of stability."
I strongly agree with ElBaradei, and am convinced that the ambivalence of US attitudes toward democracy in the region - most clearly seen in the hostile US reaction to Hamas' sweeping electoral victory in 2006 - carries a clear threat of promoting long-term disaster. But one must concede that the course of history between 1992 and now much more clearly favour the old arguments put forward by WINEP than they do my own.
Shifting power structures
Consider: The Algerian civil war of the 1990s, rather than ending, as I had initially anticipated, in the defeat of a corrupt, military-dominated elite, has instead led to the thorough marginalisation of a violent Islamist movement which has discredited itself in the eyes of the people. While its face has changed, the old elite survives. And the passing of an elder generation of leaders, rather than hastening the disintegration of repressive and unrepresentative power structures across the region, has led instead to the relatively smooth transfer of power to their sons - in Morocco, in Jordan, in Syria, and in UAE. We can probably expect to see the same shortly in Libya and, most significantly, in Egypt - Mr. ElBaradei and the democratic opposition notwithstanding.
I believe it is right that ElBaradei should solicit the support of world opinion and warn of the consequences for regional stability of the continued frustration of Egypt's popular aspirations for reform. No doubt his pleas will continue to receive an encouraging echo in the Western press. But if he expects more than that, he is fooling himself. For when push comes to shove, the US and other western governments, to the extent they can influence events at all, will opt, in Mr. ElBaradei's words, for the elusive promise of stability.
It is easy to criticise an unlovely regime like that of Hosni Mubarak, and both public and private figures in the US rise enthusiastically to the task. But just let them glimpse a realistic prospect for the Egyptian Muslim Brothers to gain a significant share of power, and their enthusiasm will rapidly wane. I and others who believe as I do remain convinced that this is a significant mistake, and that the prominent current of thinking in the US which refuses to make a significant distinction between groups like the Muslim brothers and the violent Islamists who embrace the banner of Al Qaeda is wrong-headed. Our problem is that we simply cannot find compelling evidence to make our case. Absent new facts, which only the people of the region can provide, we are destined to lose the debate.
Robert Grenier is a retired, 27-year veteran of the CIA’s Clandestine Service. He was Director of the CIA’s Counter-Terrorism Center from 2004 to 2006.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/20111294810405799.html
al Roumi
01-06-2011, 15:46
So, a servant of the great satan (and therefore not just some pinko dhimmi) says the US should not only support the democracies it likes, but allow the ones it's doesn't see eye-to-eye with to continue to exist. The example of Algeria is an interesting one -but not the only one, Somalia and the government of the Islamic courts could also be considered.
Below are some of my thoughts, not meant to guide the discussion in any way.
Why does the US and others balk at the idea of even a mildly Islamist government? Would the US be as safe (less or more?) if it relaxed a bit about political Islam, recognising as Mr Grenier does, a difference between AL Qaida type violent jihadis and other Islamist political organisations?
Those who have studied movements such as Hamas chart a swing in its policy between populist Islamism and pragmatic governing. Pushing such groups back out into the cold has been said (http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-middle_east_politics/hamas_3982.jsp#)to re-enforce their dogmatic Islamism when they could instead be brought into the center of peaceful and rational politics.
Greyblades
01-06-2011, 15:57
Cant say I'm surprised, the middle east is and was a mess, even before the iraq war, anyone would be reluctant to get tangled up trying to sort out an islamic state and not peeve off every arab in the region when its just easier to leave them to it and hope it sorts itself out.
Then again I probably dont know what I'm talking about, All I know of islam/arabia/the middle east in general are small news snippets and horror stories about sharia(sp) law.
The US has always favoured supporting specific people and personalities and has always distrusted and misunderstood movements and ideologies, even if the latter are more just than the former.
Leet Eriksson
01-06-2011, 16:45
THEM ISLAMS has always been a convenient catchphrase to lump all muslims into some sort of monolithic entity, and it stops there as far as i'm concerned. Also US corporations always want autocratic capitalist regimes, instead of change. Israel also never desired peace in the first place according to wikileaks, hamas and the PLO are convenient pawns to keep pumping money into their military industry.
rory_20_uk
01-06-2011, 16:58
And many Islamic countries refer to most of the west as "Christian" when a more correct term would be "Secular". In terms of misrepresentation that is more extreme.
~:smoking:
Leet Eriksson
01-06-2011, 17:13
And many Islamic countries refer to most of the west as "Christian" when a more correct term would be "Secular". In terms of misrepresentation that is more extreme.
~:smoking:
an unsupported and completely irrelevant statement. This is about the US governments perception and foreign policy with regards to the middle east, not some cavemen in afghanistan.
And many Islamic countries refer to most of the west as "Christian" when a more correct term would be "Secular".
Do remember that some people also refer to their own countries as (Judeao)Christian, here in the west. Notable examples? Geert Wilders, for example, or what about Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly. They are like the radical imams of the American right wing, if you forgive the simile. Hell, George W. Bush himself said he had been inspired by God and he called the Republican Party "God's party". You know how that would translate to Arabic?
Hizbollah.
EDIT: Just for clarification, I'm not really in the position to debate on whether or how "the Islamic countries/regimes/(religious)authorities" view the western states, I just wanted to point out that it is not necessarily something just they do.
EDIT 2:
Why does the US and others balk at the idea of even a mildly Islamist government? Would the US be as safe (less or more?) if it relaxed a bit about political Islam, recognising as Mr Grenier does, a difference between AL Qaida type violent jihadis and other Islamist political organisations?
While it's not really fair to draw a comparison with the Salafiyya-Wahhabi Sunni organisations and the Twelver Shi'a government of Iran, but this reminds me of what went wrong there in '79. The Shah and his SAVAK were probably less horrible than the Supreme Leader and his basiji, but what irked the Iranian people is the fact that the US and the UK (especially those two) went to such great lengths to support that regime. Of course, we know why, but that's not really important right now.
I think the reason why the US fears an Islamist government in any middle-eastern country is because they'd be afraid that they'd use it as a base to export their Islamism. Of course, Iran was never interested in exporting the revolution, as they don't really think in terms like "dar al-Islam" or "dar al-harb", but al-Qaeda does. Of course, when you look at al-Qaeda, you'll notice that they're basically idiots with western-style education that have been brainwashed by pseudo-imams that cherrypicked verses from the Qur'an or the Hadiths.
Leet Eriksson
01-06-2011, 18:14
While it's not really fair to draw a comparison with the Salafiyya-Wahhabi Sunni organisations and the Twelver Shi'a government of Iran, but this reminds me of what went wrong there in '79. The Shah and his SAVAK were probably less horrible than the Supreme Leader and his basiji, but what irked the Iranian people is the fact that the US and the UK (especially those two) went to such great lengths to support that regime. Of course, we know why, but that's not really important right now.
I think the reason why the US fears an Islamist government in any middle-eastern country is because they'd be afraid that they'd use it as a base to export their Islamism. Of course, Iran was never interested in exporting the revolution, as they don't really think in terms like "dar al-Islam" or "dar al-harb", but al-Qaeda does. Of course, when you look at al-Qaeda, you'll notice that they're basically idiots with western-style education that have been brainwashed by pseudo-imams that cherrypicked verses from the Qur'an or the Hadiths.
The iranian revolution was mostly communist and Islamic (the communists were consumed, or their cause hijacked later on), and you're wrong, the west supported the islamic revolutionaries over the shah, who was actually worse, and they do export terror, the shia aligned revolts in the arabian peninsula, and hizbollah in lebanon is apparent, they aim to create an unfavourable environment for a whole lot of folks, and there is little reason to believe the IRI's interest in the welfare of shia minories, let alone the region is well intentioned.
The US does not really fear an Islamic government, they simply do not want the status quo to change for a whole lot of reasons, but long story short, stability, business, the whole deal and i guess a little bit of nepotism and buddy buddy relationships with countries like saudi, morroco and egypt since the early 1900s.
Strike For The South
01-06-2011, 18:19
I have nothing relevant to add to the thread
Other than Congratulations Fizzil, the regular channels have provided with some news that is most exciting
Good show old bean
and you're wrong, the west supported the islamic revolutionaries over the shah
You're thinking of the Iran-contra affair, aren't you? My point was that initially, the west supported the Shah. Only when the situation became unbearable they decided to retract support.
and you're wrong, the west supported the islamic revolutionaries over the shah, who was actually worse, and they do export terror, the shia aligned revolts in the arabian peninsula, and hizbollah in lebanon is apparent, they aim to create an unfavourable environment for a whole lot of folks, and there is little reason to believe the IRI's interest in the welfare of shia minories, let alone the region is well intentioned.
But the Shi'i government isn't interested at all in creating a world-wide Shi'a Islamic empire or anything to that extent.
Leet Eriksson
01-06-2011, 19:10
You're thinking of the Iran-contra affair, aren't you? My point was that initially, the west supported the Shah. Only when the situation became unbearable they decided to retract support.
But the Shi'i government isn't interested at all in creating a world-wide Shi'a Islamic empire or anything to that extent.
Its not really hegemony, its simply a buffer to throw the US off whatever it is iranian interests are. My point is to highlight why its such an unhealthy endeavor iran is pursuing already, since these are US aligned countries, they're basically putting minorities in the peninsula in harms way to protect or serve their interests.
Strike For The South
01-06-2011, 19:50
Its not really hegemony, its simply a buffer to throw the US off whatever it is iranian interests are. My point is to highlight why its such an unhealthy endeavor iran is pursuing already, since these are US aligned countries, they're basically putting minorities in the peninsula in harms way to protect or serve their interests.
America would never do that!
THE KURDS ARE A GOOD PEOPLE, well they weren't when we gave Saddam the weapons to gas them in the 80s but they were in the 90s when we didn't like Saddam
If people ever stopped and looked at Americas track recored throughout the past 40 years every congressmen would be dead tommorow
I realize that holding America up to an abtairy perfection standard is stupid and idealisitc but If I could set the over at 3 for "ruthless dictators we give weapons to" per decade would that be to much to ask?
rory_20_uk
01-06-2011, 21:01
an unsupported and completely irrelevant statement. This is about the US governments perception and foreign policy with regards to the middle east, not some cavemen in afghanistan.
Perhaps in future you'll bother to write a cogent post as opposed to the ambiguous one you posted beforehand.
~:smoking:
Leet Eriksson
01-07-2011, 10:49
Perhaps in future you'll bother to write a cogent post as opposed to the ambiguous one you posted beforehand.
~:smoking:
The irony is overwhelming coming from a poster who has yet to contribute something that isn't devoid of content and useful.
rory_20_uk
01-07-2011, 10:55
The irony is overwhelming coming from a poster who has yet to contribute something that isn't devoid of content and useful.
Apologies oh great overlord for being misled by your badly worded post...
Are you aware your last statement barely makes sense either? Perhaps replacing the "and" with "or" might help...
And what do we call a reposte to a post criticising accuracy which itself is inaccurate?
~:smoking:
Leet Eriksson
01-07-2011, 11:03
Apologies oh great overlord for being misled by your badly worded post...
Are you aware your last statement barely makes sense either? Perhaps replacing the "and" with "or" might help...
And what do we call a reposte to a post criticising accuracy which itself is inaccurate?
~:smoking:
This post says alot about whose cogent, how is my post inaccurate when i'm mirroring the CIA agent in that AJE article? on the other hand you post a baseless and unsupported statement of "islamic" countries that mis characterize the secular european nations as "christian" which is apparently even more "extreme", since when did you become arbiter in this matter?
al Roumi
01-07-2011, 11:51
Hand-bags at dawn... Chew some Qat and chill the :daisy: out ladies.
rory_20_uk
01-07-2011, 12:03
:bow:
~:smoking:
al Roumi
01-07-2011, 12:18
The US does not really fear an Islamic government, they simply do not want the status quo to change for a whole lot of reasons, but long story short, stability, business, the whole deal and i guess a little bit of nepotism and buddy buddy relationships with countries like saudi, morroco and egypt since the early 1900s.
Yes, but this emphasis on preserving stability at the cost of other people's aspirations is what does for perceptions of the USA's as a force for good. It is a form of exploitation which contrasts horrendously with the US' self perception as a beacon of liberty -which is of course pumped out accross the world in films and TV.
Yet given the stand point of a state dept policy maker, or even US politician, whose primary focus will (arguably quite rightly) always be the interests of the US and its citizens over any others, it's hard to see any possible change.
The US supported groups of insurgents operating under warlords in Afghanistan, against the Soviets.
Once these warlords became a movement - the Taliban - the US distrusted them. And instead supported other groups of insurgents operating under (opium funded) warlords to oust them. It continues to prop up Karzai - a corrupt, incompetant and paranoid fool who no-one outside his paid up clique would touch with a bargepole.
I brought up Korea on a thread a while back. A similar thing happened then. The US was deeply suspicious of the socialist North Koreans. A group who became odder and more secretive once they had been marginalised by the US, and violently repressed by the South Korean President - Rhee - himself a classic US selection of "our man".
South and Central America was riven with "our men". Almost all corrupt and desperately unpopular and usually undemocratic despots and tyrants. Some of whom were actually sponsored by the US to overthrow democratic governments.
The US talks a lot about democracy - but in truth they are absolutely terrified of it. Because, strangely enough, poor and abused populaces in other parts of the world, with other cultures, have the odd habit of electing people who they believe represent their interests, rather than that of the US military or economy.
The biggest mistake of this century will be seen by historians as the first Bush election. Leaders around the world saw the voting irregularities and rigging as a carte blanche for the legitimization of electoral rigging. If it's ok in the US, then it's ok here.
The question that this thread has hanging in the breeze is "what is stability?" and does it really differ from acendant western interest?
My best bet would be that it's easier to make deals with nations, political islam has no national borders it's more of a movement. Just a guess, if it would be just Egypt with an islamist government it wouldn't really be a problem, but what if it's neighbours also do
rory_20_uk
01-07-2011, 12:59
Let's not forget the Gaza strip, where the wrong lot were democratically elected.
~:smoking:
al Roumi
01-07-2011, 13:30
The question that this thread has hanging in the breeze is "what is stability?" and does it really differ from acendant western interest?
Nicely put.
For the US (and others) to move away from the cronyist policies they would almost certainly have to be a little less risk averse. I think Frag's is right about Islamism and the desire (to whatever extent, it does exist) to create a pan-islamic block. Clearly, such a block would endanger the current "stability" enjoyed by the US (Oil, trade, security etc).
But, to what extent does political Islam engender -or enable, such a block of nation(s) forming? My impression, as with the author of the article (by inference), is that one does not nessessarily lead to the other. However, it appears that the US is not prepared to take that risk -however marginal it may be.
---------------~~~ooooOOOOoooo~~~---------------
I still find the issue of "US hypocrisy" interesting. When the US remonstrates with authoritarian leaders for their heavy handed "statecraft", does it do so becasue of a genuine will to unilaterly improve the lot of mankind -or a domestic pressure for protest to be lodged, conditioned by a greater domestic preogative for existing domestic conditions to be maintained?
To my mind, US rhetoric is aspirational enough to lead one to believe the former, but action denotes the later -which is also "pragmatic" and machiavelian enough to reflect the reality of diplomacy.
My best bet would be that it's easier to make deals with nations, political islam has no national borders it's more of a movement. Just a guess, if it would be just Egypt with an islamist government it wouldn't really be a problem, but what if it's neighbours also do
That's a very niaive view based on a very sketchy understanding of history.
Political Islam is the product of the "our men" policy. Go back 80 years and take a look at the creation of the countries of the middle east. Most of which were created in the aftermath of the first or second world wars. All of them were created as client states of the west with propped up leaders in the form of the House of Saud, the Hashemite monarchy, etc. Fast forward 20-40 or so years and you will find the dominant political movement in the middle east was secular and leftist. Often in the form of Ba'athist pan arabism. This was of course suppressed by "our men". The Suez crisis is an excellent case in point. A popular middle east leader who wasn't under direct control and who played off east and west for the most despicable of motives - getting a good deal for his own people.
The aggressive suppression of all political movements in the Arab and Persian world created a vaccuum of political aspirations. You couldn't stand on a soap box and make political statements. If you did you'd end up in the CIA sponsored torture chambers of the Shah of Iran or the their equivalents in the Gulf. How could political thought and aspiration get round this? How could ordinary people in these places express the natural human desire for change, justice and political expression? The answer is religion. Hence political Islam was born. The house of Saud can cart off a political firebrand never to be seen again - but could the protectors of Islam do the same to a respected cleric?
Look at the socio-economic make-up of the 9/11 bombers. Poor urchins? No - politically deprived middle classes. The same class that caused such a fuss in the US in the 1770s.
Why does the US and others balk at the idea of even a mildly Islamist government? Would the US be as safe (less or more?) if it relaxed a bit about political Islam, recognising as Mr Grenier does, a difference between AL Qaida type violent jihadis and other Islamist political organisations?
I wonder if the US would rather have, say in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood in power, an neo-Nasser in power, or the status quo...I'm guessing the latter, since it's the least risky in the short term. At least there's none of Rmsfelds unknown unknowns regarding the current regime.
Do remember that some people also refer to their own countries as (Judeao)Christian, here in the west. Notable examples? Geert Wilders, for example, or what about Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly. They are like the radical imams of the American right wing, if you forgive the simile. Hell, George W. Bush himself said he had been inspired by God and he called the Republican Party "God's party". You know how that would translate to Arabic?
Hizbollah.
Zing! Very nice :D
The iranian revolution was mostly communist and Islamic (the communists were consumed, or their cause hijacked later on), and you're wrong, the west supported the islamic revolutionaries over the shah, who was actually worse, and they do export terror, the shia aligned revolts in the arabian peninsula, and hizbollah in lebanon is apparent, they aim to create an unfavourable environment for a whole lot of folks, and there is little reason to believe the IRI's interest in the welfare of shia minories, let alone the region is well intentioned.
The US does not really fear an Islamic government, they simply do not want the status quo to change for a whole lot of reasons, but long story short, stability, business, the whole deal and i guess a little bit of nepotism and buddy buddy relationships with countries like saudi, morroco and egypt since the early 1900s.
Maybe the US is too tempted to thing that change is incompatible with stability. Sometimes the move to a more stable system can only come from a revolution (E.g. Velvet Divorce, Meiji Restoration, establishment of the French Fifth Republic etc.) Rather, what appears to be stability in countries in the Middle East is in fact the kind of rule which characterised Latin American pro-USA dictatorships, frozen in time long after the threat of communism receded.
The US talks a lot about democracy - but in truth they are absolutely terrified of it. Because, strangely enough, poor and abused populaces in other parts of the world, with other cultures, have the odd habit of electing people who they believe represent their interests, rather than that of the US military or economy.
So why did the USA allow Latin America to democratise, rather than continuing to support military rule and juntas?
For the US (and others) to move away from the cronyist policies they would almost certainly have to be a little less risk averse. I think Frag's is right about Islamism and the desire (to whatever extent, it does exist) to create a pan-islamic block. Clearly, such a block would endanger the current "stability" enjoyed by the US (Oil, trade, security etc).
But, to what extent does political Islam engender -or enable, such a block of nation(s) forming? My impression, as with the author of the article (by inference), is that one does not nessessarily lead to the other. However, it appears that the US is not prepared to take that risk -however marginal it may be.
---------------~~~ooooOOOOoooo~~~---------------
I still find the issue of "US hypocrisy" interesting. When the US remonstrates with authoritarian leaders for their heavy handed "statecraft", does it do so becasue of a genuine will to unilaterly improve the lot of mankind -or a domestic pressure for protest to be lodged, conditioned by a greater domestic preogative for existing domestic conditions to be maintained?
To my mind, US rhetoric is aspirational enough to lead one to believe the former, but action denotes the later -which is also "pragmatic" and machiavelian enough to reflect the reality of diplomacy.
Your second section gives the insight that you are missing from the first. The idea of pan-islamic statehood and the world caliphate is a fantasy. Islam is a massively sectarian religion, for one. Islamic nations have shown the same willingness for hypocracy, civil war, national interest and scullduggery that Christian nations have over the centuries.
Fearing a pan islamic world is like the 17th century protestant fears of an all-powerful pope taking over the world.
So why did the USA allow Latin America to democratise, rather than continuing to support military rule and juntas?
I don't claim to have all the answers. Off the top of my head I might suggest that the US isn't against democracy providing they control the political hegemony?
OK I admit it was unfair for me to ask you about something specific like that. But I still feel it shows that the USA wants to spread democracy, but doesn't see the support of autocratic regimes a terrible thing in comparison to the alternative (Communism, Radical Islamists etc.), which I would say isn't that bad for the world's only super power.
al Roumi
01-07-2011, 14:02
Your second section gives the insight that you are missing from the first. The idea of pan-islamic statehood and the world caliphate is a fantasy. Islam is a massively sectarian religion, for one. Islamic nations have shown the same willingness for hypocracy, civil war, national interest and scullduggery that Christian nations have over the centuries.
Fearing a pan islamic world is like the 17th century protestant fears of an all-powerful pope taking over the world.
Fair point. There certainly is something of the "Mahometian peril" about the western fear of political islam. You do have to acknowledge Frag's point that there does exist a minority in favour of a caliphate and all that jazz though. A balanced democracy (i.e. with proper seperation of powers etc) should be able to hold fringe extremism at bay however, yet therein lies much of the possible concern: democracies are not born without strife and take a while to settle.
OK I admit it was unfair for me to ask you about something specific like that. But I still feel it shows that the USA wants to spread democracy, but doesn't see the support of autocratic regimes a terrible thing in comparison to the alternative (Communism, Radical Islamists etc.), which I would say isn't that bad for the world's only super power.
I think the US primarily wants allied and controllable client states. If they are democratic, then that's a bonus. In the words of Churchill "The US can always be relied on to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other options".
You do have to acknowledge Frag's point that there does exist a minority in favour of a caliphate and all that jazz though.
...
democracies are not born without strife and take a while to settle.
A minority of people believe all sorts of crap! Don't 50% of Americans think 9/11 was a hoax and Obama is a muslim?
It's true - democracies do often have difficult births - and sometimes they produce results that other countries don't like - Gaza for example. But we either believe in democracy or we don't. Once you start cherry-picking, that defeats the whole point.
al Roumi
01-07-2011, 14:30
A minority of people believe all sorts of crap! Don't 50% of Americans think 9/11 was a hoax and Obama is a muslim?
Exactly!
It's true - democracies do often have difficult births - and sometimes they produce results that other countries don't like - Gaza for example. But we either believe in democracy or we don't. Once you start cherry-picking, that defeats the whole point.
Indeedy-doody. :smash:
I think the US primarily wants allied and controllable client states. If they are democratic, then that's a bonus. In the words of Churchill "The US can always be relied on to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other options".
I think the US wants whatever keeps the US secure, and the US recognises that stable democracies abroad naturally serve US interests the most. It's a win-win situation, but the US is very prepared to jettison democracy when it is unfeasible or contrary to US interests.
Was more a musing than a point mind you, but I think it all comes down to nation-states interacting. We aid minorities if a hostile nation-state needs to be disrupted and vica versa when it isn't hostile. Don't think particular ideologies come first, just politics. Democracy in the middle-east is clanwars 2.0 anyway, way too complex. Way to corrupt as well it's basicly begging them to flock with their own
I think the US wants whatever keeps the US secure, and the US recognises that stable democracies abroad naturally serve US interests the most. It's a win-win situation, but the US is very prepared to jettison democracy when it is unfeasible or contrary to US interests.
I suppose that's where we differ. You think that democracy is prime, but is neccesarily subordinated for US interests. I think that US interests are prime, and democracy is just a happy and occasional bi-product.
Was more a musing than a point mind you, but I think it all comes down to nation-states interacting. We aid minorities if a hostile nation-state needs to be disrupted and vica versa when it isn't hostile. Don't think particular ideologies come first, just politics. Democracy in the middle-east is clanwars 2.0 anyway, way too complex. Way to corrupt as well it's basicly begging them to flock with their own
In societies without robust political and democratic institutions, people rely on a network of family, ethnic, tribal, geographic and other institutional influences to affect changes in their lives. This isn't a peculiarity of the middle east, it's just a necessary political strategy for societies with this level of political development.
In societies without robust political and democratic institutions, people rely on a network of family, ethnic, tribal, geographic and other institutional influences to affect changes in their lives. This isn't a peculiarity of the middle east, it's just a necessary political strategy for societies with this level of political development
But why would democracy be a necessity at all? An old middle eastern proverb I just made up 'who's in control doesn't negotiate'.
al Roumi
01-07-2011, 16:06
But why would democracy be a necessity at all? An old middle eastern proverb I just made up 'who's in control doesn't negotiate'.
You answer yourself in a way, in a properly balanced democracy, no-one holds enough power to not have to negotiate. It is at once the greatest strangth and weakness of democracies. There is a school of thought that "benevolent autocracy" can produce better results and quicker than democracy, but the "benevolence" of autocracy is statisticaly quite fleeting -and of course we need not go into the possible damage by autocracies.
You answer yourself in a way, in a properly balanced democracy, no-one holds enough power to not have to negotiate. It is at once the greatest strangth and weakness of democracies. There is a school of thought that "benevolent autocracy" can produce better results and quicker than democracy, but the "benevolence" of autocracy is statisticaly quite fleeting -and of course we need not go into the possible damage by autocracies.
Someone has the hold the knife that slices the pie, in a democracy everybody wants to be that, and we at least can expect it to be not all too unfair. Wouldn't the Middle Eastern countries benefit from an enlighted despot or even a theocrate who's authority isn't to be doubted, bit like a referee to solve disputes.
I suppose that's where we differ. You think that democracy is prime, but is neccesarily subordinated for US interests. I think that US interests are prime, and democracy is just a happy and occasional bi-product.
Basically yeah, although I would say that it's generally in the US' interest for countries to be democratic, rather than them being mutually exclusive.
al Roumi
01-07-2011, 17:02
Someone has the hold the knife that slices the pie, in a democracy everybody wants to be that, and we at least can expect it to be not all too unfair. Wouldn't the Middle Eastern countries benefit from an enlighted despot or even a theocrate who's authority isn't to be doubted, bit like a referee to solve disputes.
That's kind of the point of democracy though, all the seperate parts (legislative, executive, judicial) should push against themselves and hence support the whole system.
With the best will in the world, saying that the people of the middle east need something different to democracy smacks a bit of orientalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book)): that "they" only recognise a strong man and that "we", by inference, are naturaly more democratic. I know you don't mean it like that but democracy is just a system, as is monarchy or dictatorship. People almost certainly said that monarchism was the natural/most culturaly appropriate thing in Europe during the 1700s, but thank god, we are no longer stuck in the societies of the 1700s.
That said, there are some within political Islam who are not keen on democracy, ostensibly becasue they regard it as a foreign/christian invention and hence alien to Islam. My feeling is that these people are those who stand to loose more from a balanced and hence potentially less theocratic state, so of course they don't like the idea of it.
Leet Eriksson
01-07-2011, 17:57
That said, there are some within political Islam who are not keen on democracy, ostensibly becasue they regard it as a foreign/christian invention and hence alien to Islam. My feeling is that these people are those who stand to loose more from a balanced and hence potentially less theocratic state, so of course they don't like the idea of it.
Great posts, good points overall, however i beg to differ on this last line, outside of theocrats, islamist movements do believe in some sort of democratic voting system, it isn't something western or foreign since the first four caliphs after muhammed were voted in, by what would be called a Bai'ah. Its not exactly progressive in this day and age, since it relied on the person having knowledge in alot of islamic qanun and shariah, the point is democracy as a system isn't really alien, and there is alot of literature that goes back to the 50s to support that, as well as the recent egyptian elections fiasco (the muslim brotherhood supported El Baradeis platform which was secular).
al Roumi
01-07-2011, 18:21
Great posts, good points overall, however i beg to differ on this last line
How funny, I could say the same to you, your consumate intelligency... :wink:
the recent egyptian elections fiasco (the muslim brotherhood supported El Baradeis platform which was secular).
...not without a degree of internal discussion, and strife, did the MB support El Baradei.
The need for democracy is a bit too whitemenguildish for me. Let them do it their way they'll figure it out.
al Roumi
01-07-2011, 19:00
The need for democracy is a bit too whitemenguildish for me. Let them do it their way they'll figure it out.
I see what you're saying, and you are spot on that only a context driven/derived system will ever work, but democracy really is just a system -and you only have to look around the world (not just the west) to see how many permutations there can be of supposedly successful forms to (IMO) see that it can work for everyone.
I see what you're saying, and you are spot on that only a context driven/derived system will ever work, but democracy really is just a system -and you only have to look around the world (not just the west) to see how many permutations there can be of supposedly successful forms to (IMO) see that it can work for everyone.
That's a bit of a missionaries take, the west isn't the east. Democracy is something that naturally evolved here because of a quazillions of reasons, but it's a poor export product without them
Leet Eriksson
01-07-2011, 22:36
How funny, I could say the same to you, your consumate intelligency... :wink:
...not without a degree of internal discussion, and strife, did the MB support El Baradei.
The fact they reached that decision is telling, it wasn't because of democracy, but rather some of his [al baradei] more secular policies.
That's a bit of a missionaries take, the west isn't the east. Democracy is something that naturally evolved here because of a quazillions of reasons, but it's a poor export product without them
Naturally evolved? I don't think so. It was a foreign idea imported and implemented violently against enormous resistance by the powers at the time. In the 18th century most European monarchs looked at the American and French revolutions with undiluted horror. The Great Reform Act of 1832 in Britain divided the politicians even though it's measures were very conservative. The 19th century was marked by piecemeal compromise by the ruling class to democracy. One could easily argue that modern democracy, as we now know it, in Europe and the US was really only something implemented in the 20th century.
The idea that democracy is something only befitting Europeans is a fantasy that appeals to European right-wingers and the incumbent despots and wannabe despots of other parts of the world.
al Roumi
01-09-2011, 01:17
That's a bit of a missionaries take, the west isn't the east. Democracy is something that naturally evolved here because of a quazillions of reasons, but it's a poor export product without them
yeah ok, you are being orientalist now.
A functioning and secular democracy will self-replicate itself in its population. It is only when people become desperate that more oppressive measures are required till the point where revolution is only the real solution.
Problem in the west is that many of our democracies are simply compromises or out-dated rhetoric which hasn't progressed with the times. The issue other places is that they haven't really experienced a democracy. The democratic deficient is also a problem as it makes 'democracy' look weak when it is actually one of the most stabilizing forces in a society.
There is also the case where many people just fail to learn from history and instead of trying to make a better tomorrow, they are either blinded by petty selfishness, historical grievances or just give up and don't bother.
In order to make a real difference, you have to think beyond your own interests, and only then when we as humanity can make our real differences.
Usually, this is the point where I get attacked by nationsalists and other groups usually associated with the 'right', because they have their own self-interests, such as wanting their country to better than everyone else, or being a position of some sort of unearned advantage over others.
yeah ok, you are being orientalist now.
OK, if that's a bad thing I'll just put it in my collection. Consensus driven policy just happens to be a western thing, non-western democracy is usually a facade.
al Roumi
01-10-2011, 12:56
OK, if that's a bad thing I'll just put it in my collection.
I just mean that you are saying that they are different people/cultures so should be considered differently, which is ironic because I'm normaly harping on about tolerance...
Consensus driven policy just happens to be a western thing, non-western democracy is usually a facade.
It certainly is in many cases, but that isn't actually democracy. Elections do not a democracy make, yet the two are very commonly, and quite incorrectly, conflated to be the same thing. Elections are widely abused and used as a fig-leaf for more naked dictatorship.
OK, if that's a bad thing I'll just put it in my collection. Consensus driven policy just happens to be a western thing, non-western democracy is usually a facade.
Any examples to back this up, or are you shooting from the hip again?
Japan, South Korea and India are all examples of non-Western countries with secure democracies. True, all were heavily influenced by Western ideas of democracy, but which democracy isn't?
Any examples to back this up, or are you shooting from the hip again?
Kidding me? Can you name me one African or Middle-Eastern democracy that can hold a candle to the western ones? They have a running joke in Egypt where a burglar finds the winners of the next elections, such fatalist humour exists for a reason. Means to and end, not democracy as the end. Not saying they are unfit for democracy, but these countries are much more complicated. Again, clanwars 2.0, less bloody, but hardly ideal. And often bloody.
Leet Eriksson
01-10-2011, 14:14
Kidding me? Can you name me one African or Middle-Eastern democracy that can hold a candle to the western ones? They have a running joke in Egypt where a burglar finds the winners of the next elections, such fatalist humour exists for a reason. Means to and end, not democracy as the end. Not saying they are unfit for democracy, but these countries are much more complicated. Again, clanwars 2.0, less bloody, but hardly ideal. And often bloody.
lol are you serious? how is egypt a democracy again? just because it calls itself one doesn't mean it is. This is a rather euro/western centric view to claim that non-western countries have no agency and are only capable of being ruled by an iron fist, too simplistic and terribly wrong.
lol are you serious? how is egypt a democracy again? just because it calls itself one doesn't mean it is. This is a rather euro/western centric view to claim that non-western countries have no agency and are only capable of being ruled by an iron fist, too simplistic and terribly wrong.
Exactly what I said no?
al Roumi
01-10-2011, 15:32
Exactly what I said no?
Yeah but the difference is that you say Egypt has a crap democracy because Egyptian people/society can't handle/don't want democracy.
I think we have to recognise that societies look different after a period of a particular kind of rule, be it capitalist, democracy, communist, dictatorship etc. If you were to look at France prior to 1780, would you think it was suitable for democratic rule?
Also, what do you think would make a country suitable for democratic rule? Because from the sound of what you are saying, it sounds like a country would have to already be a democracy...
al Roumi
01-10-2011, 15:33
Botswana
Ghana's not bad either. (AFAIK)
Yeah but the difference is that you say Egypt has a crap democracy because Egyptian people/society can't handle/don't want democracy.
I think we have to recognise that societies look different after a period of a particular kind of rule, be it capitalist, democracy, communist, dictatorship etc. If you were to look at France prior to 1780, would you think it was suitable for democratic rule?
Also, what do you think would make a country suitable for democratic rule? Because from the sound of what you are saying, it sounds like a country would have to already be a democracy...
No I said that it's complex, it is, we simply can't expect the same from a devided people, here we fought things out and there we cut things up, look at Africa's borders. All African nations are are a joke, they are western inventions. Can we at least be honost about that
Leet Eriksson
01-10-2011, 16:38
Ghana's not bad either. (AFAIK)
The congo too, well back in the 50s that is. To fragony, i think i take issue with the way you word things, but you seem to understand the situations fairly well, my apologies for the misunderstanding.
al Roumi
01-10-2011, 16:52
No I said that it's complex, it is, we simply can't expect the same from a devided people, here we fought things out and there we cut things up, look at Africa's borders. All African nations are are a joke, they are western inventions. Can we at least be honost about that
Certainly, you are right on all counts, but I don't know if in practice these issues are more of a handicap than a death knell.
For example, who would have thought in the 1970s that Spain's democracy would stick after 40 years of dictatorship?
Paul Collier's analysis of democracies in developping countries is interesting (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wars-Guns-Votes-Democracy-Dangerous/dp/1847920217), even if his recomendations are a bit fruity, not to mention interventionalist!
The congo too, well back in the 50s that is. To fragony, i think i take issue with the way you word things, but you seem to understand the situations fairly well, my apologies for the misunderstanding.
Nothing taken as such
You have to compare countries with similar economic situations to even approach a reasonable comparison. I thought that was so obvious I didn't need to stipulate.
al Roumi
01-10-2011, 18:11
You have to compare countries with similar economic situations to even approach a reasonable comparison. I thought that was so obvious I didn't need to stipulate.
well yah. But surely more than just economics? no?
Ghana's not bad either. (AFAIK)
Mhm, Obama visited there recently to acclaim it for it's democratic progress.
You have to compare countries with similar economic situations to even approach a reasonable comparison. I thought that was so obvious I didn't need to stipulate.
There really aren't any economy's to compare to draw any conclusion whatsoever, unless you want to live in the alternative reality that is social theory. If things would be better it would be better, is that really a point?
There really aren't any economy's to compare to draw any conclusion whatsoever, unless you want to live in the alternative reality that is social theory. If things would be better it would be better, is that really a point?
Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore are the only non-western nations which have a similar level of western wealth...and unamazingly, they have similar capitalist democracies.
well yah. But surely more than just economics? no?
Economic mode defines political superstructure. Political structure is the very expression of economics.
Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore are the only non-western nations which have a similar level of western wealth...and unamazingly, they have similar capitalist democracies.
Yes and my little pony also has 4 legs, giraffes as well but the have longer necks and are yellow
al Roumi
01-11-2011, 11:44
Economic mode defines political superstructure. Political structure is the very expression of economics.
I'm not sure about that tbh. I'm aware of evidence that democracies (on average) promote an extra percentage point or so of growth but I'm not convinced you can be so cock-sure of the particular causality of a country's economy on its political structure. Could you explain what you are getting at?
Yes and my little pony also has 4 legs, giraffes as well but the have longer necks and are yellow
I offer examples time after time Fragony, and you just make unbased assertions.
I'm not sure about that tbh. I'm aware of evidence that democracies (on average) promote an extra percentage point or so of growth but I'm not convinced you can be so cock-sure of the particular causality of a country's economy on its political structure. Could you explain what you are getting at?
This is basic political theory guys - nothing radical.
I offer examples time after time Fragony, and you just make unbased assertions.
I'm being realistic, you on the other hand are in love with your idea on how things should be, I don't have to check any map I already know the asian country's aren't like the middle-east
al Roumi
01-11-2011, 13:34
This is basic political theory guys - nothing radical.
Indulge me then. How does a "country's economic mode define its political superstructure", or point me in the irection of a handy reference. From what I see of the world, the focus on economy (barring possible meanings of economic mode) and nothing else seems utterly incomplete.
Edit: (I'm an Engineer by the way so don't be surprised that I've not studied basic political theory)
Political power is wielded by those who demand it and cannot be turned away.
In an agrarian economy, it is the land owners who hold power. They defend their interests against a monarch through titles, and confer these titles within their families. Political modes: feudalism, colonial slave/plantation systems.
In an early industrial economy, the land owners and factory owners hold power. Rule of law is important for stable investments and contracts. Political modes: constitutional monarchy, mercantile capitalism, limited franchise democracy.
Middle industrial economy creates a booming middle class. This in turn demands political power to match rising economic power - franchise gets extended. You know what a late industrial economy looks like, and it's political mode.
In addition to this you get other types of economies such as the primary industry economies in the developing world and the middle east. They have vast mineral wealth, but it's controlled by a small political elite and only needs a fraction of the population to extract it. These have very similar political and economic structures to the agrarian economies - essentially fuedal.
This is a good introduction:
Barrington Moore - Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Social-Origins-Dictatorship-Democracy-Peasant/dp/0807050733)
al Roumi
01-11-2011, 14:20
Thanks! My only problem with that (and i accept that it's necessarily brief) -and i'm sure you are expecting this, is China. Or is there a bubble for (mid) industrial economies where dictatorship/one party rule exists?
Edit:
Ok, Barrington Moore's wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrington_Moore,_Jr.) gives a bit more on his theories so consider my question answered.
It does pose another however, how do non-democratic "modern" societies transfer to democracy? You seem to see that still as part of an evolution, albeit an ironic reversion of marxist evolutionary economics :wink:.
Idaho you are going to hate this, but relevant for thread imho
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm
#2
Idaho you are going to hate this, but relevant for thread imho
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm
Very consistent with the "our men" school of international relations. No real mention of cultural differences - which was pivotal to your point.
It does pose another however, how do non-democratic "modern" societies transfer to democracy? You seem to see that still as part of an evolution, albeit an ironic reversion of marxist evolutionary economics :wink:.
I don't think it is a reversion as such. The Marxist principle of political change mirroring economic change is still the only analytical model out there. What Marx then went on to assume based on that model is another matter, and one that I don't think you need subscribe to (I don't).
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.