The Development of Democratic Institutions in Arab Culture

[Leet Eriksson]

A book published in November of 2010 is obsolete? That is quite a hurdle, indeed.



You mean 2004?



Like Foreign Affairs?

Obviously calling into question the age and sources of the articles instead of their content is a well established tactic of obfuscation, but it does highlight an interesting issue. It was in fact the NeoCons who believed most strongly in the ability of the the Arab peoples to embrace democracy - so I am not sure what bearing that has on the credibility of articles published by supposedly NeoCon influenced organizations that suggest the opposite.

No you're wrong too since my whole Internet Forums Debate and Discussions career all these what 15, 20 years? i don't know, i have met many, many people, discussed with alot of people and they all universally agree, NeoCons are really an irredeemable group of misfits, that got thoroughly discredited post invasion of iraq. Yes they have good intentions, arguably that of spreading democracy, but with an attitude like the End Justifies the Means, its anything but. Reminder i'm not attacking the source, but the idea, this isn't obfuscation by any means its a legitimate argument. the neocons hardly represent american foreign policy nowadays anyway..

Now tell me, are the 2 amazon books you linked actually relevant? why aren't you referencing them in your posts?

[Jaguara]

No you're wrong too since my whole Internet Forums Debate and Discussions career all these what 15, 20 years? i don't know, i have met many, many people, discussed with alot of people and they all universally agree...

A bit of hyperbole there? You have clearly "met" P-J, and he clearly does not universally agree.

I am not sticking up for the neo-cons here, but this does not help your point. You criticise him for not quoting references, but here you are drawing on a mythical beast of "everyone agrees with me" to give credibility to your assertions.

[Leet Eriksson]

A bit of hyperbole there? You have clearly "met" P-J, and he clearly does not universally agree.

I am not sticking up for the neo-cons here, but this does not help your point. You criticise him for not quoting references, but here you are drawing on a mythical beast of "everyone agrees with me" to give credibility to your assertions.

in further review you are right, this adds nothing to the debate so i rescind my statement. However he still needs to make a credible argument for the books he linked earlier, instead of linking me a bunch of websites, on the grounds that they must be Academic, Peer reviewed, and probably non-aligned (i.e not bought science), maybe i'll take him more seriously then, becuase what he linked has already be debunked actually through media and literature, which i'm too lazy to repaste here cause it involves mostly Slavoj Zizek, an actual relevant philosopher, and a whole buttload of other books that escape my mind right now.

[Banquo's Ghost]

in further review you are right, this adds nothing to the debate so i rescind my statement. However he still needs to make a credible argument for the books he linked earlier, instead of linking me a bunch of websites, on the grounds that they must be Academic, Peer reviewed, and probably non-aligned (i.e not bought science), maybe i'll take him more seriously then, becuase what he linked has already be debunked actually through media and literature, which i'm too lazy to repaste here cause it involves mostly Slavoj Zizek, an actual relevant philosopher, and a whole buttload of other books that escape my mind right now.

I would certainly be interested in you posting some of your references. PJ has made his position clear and advanced some evidence to back up his ideas. Whereas I am personally loathe to accept the over-arching theorem, he has piqued my interest. I would be grateful if you could further the debate by providing counter-evidence as this is a fascinating area of study (to someone like me who is instinctively against imperialist agendas).

It seems to me that whilst modern Arab states clearly suffer from structural deficiencies in providing development opportunities for their peoples, characterising "the Arab" as a monolithic entity is as shaky as any other stereotype. (A trifle like characterising "the European" by reference to the political development of Bulgaria or Moldova). What I am interested in is what role external interference has had in the stagnation of most Arab states, and in addition how pernicious religion has helped this stagnation - indeed, regression in many cases, given that the Arab world was largely quite advanced culturally several hundred years ago.

(I note that this discussion is veering off at a tangent from the original topic. I may move it to a new thread - if anyone objects to a new thread, please let me know by PM with reasons).

[Hax]

Rise and fall, Banquo. Generally, the end of the Islamic Golden Age is pinpointed at 1258 AD, with the sack of Baghdad. However, people often overlook the advances made under the Ottomans, the Safavids and the Mughals.

[Leet Eriksson]

I would certainly be interested in you posting some of your references. PJ has made his position clear and advanced some evidence to back up his ideas. Whereas I am personally loathe to accept the over-arching theorem, he has piqued my interest. I would be grateful if you could further the debate by providing counter-evidence as this is a fascinating area of study (to someone like me who is instinctively against imperialist agendas).

It seems to me that whilst modern Arab states clearly suffer from structural deficiencies in providing development opportunities for their peoples, characterising "the Arab" as a monolithic entity is as shaky as any other stereotype. (A trifle like characterising "the European" by reference to the political development of Bulgaria or Moldova). What I am interested in is what role external interference has had in the stagnation of most Arab states, and in addition how pernicious religion has helped this stagnation - indeed, regression in many cases, given that the Arab world was largely quite advanced culturally several hundred years ago.

(I note that this discussion is veering off at a tangent from the original topic. I may move it to a new thread - if anyone objects to a new thread, please let me know by PM with reasons).

Alright, this is a bit of a big question, but let me clarify first, my whole point in this argument is that a statement like "Arab Culture" used as an identifier to make sweeping generalizations is false, his [PJ] evidence as far as i'm aware is only backed up by 2 books he linked but failed to reference, and when pressed he produced a bunch of links that were already of dubious quality, if i had to link to think tank based websites i'd produce a whole page myself. There is no evidence required to debunk this claim since just as you have stated its more of a stereotype. I have alot of references from the media, and the internet, besides the books by Edward Said, which are rather old but still quite relevant, things that actually affected my debate in this thread actually:

http://english.aljazeera.net/program...843342531.html <-- This is Slavoj and Tariq Ramadan discussing the popular uprising in egypt, pretty much debunking the oft brought up "Clash of Civilizations" trope in political discussion, if you're really curious read everything and watch everything slavoj zizek talks, Ramadan on the other hand is alright for muslim-european matters.
http://www.amazon.com/Rogue-State-Gu...tt_at_ep_dpt_3 <-- William Blum is probably your best bet for anti-imperialism, you should read the other books published, but this one is important to understand the current events.
http://www.salon.com/ <-- There are tons of articles here, but read the ones by Glenn Greenwald.

As for the arab states and external interference, this is for the history books, but its a combination of external meddling by colonial powers, ottoman stagnation and a whole load of tribalism. If you can ever find it, try looking in big libraries about George Hourani, he touches alot on arabic society in several time periods, but particularly post islamic, the Book is called "History of the Arabs", I read this one in 2008 but if i recall correctly he goes into detail about the colonial period. I'll update this post in the future with more reference as soon as i have the time to rifle through my collection of osprey books, i'm pretty sure i missed several.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Thank you, Leet. Much appreciated.

Much of my reflection on this subject has been through the writing of Robert Fisk, both journalistically and from his book "The Great War for Civilisation". I am just about to start on Eugene Rogan's "The Arabs" from a recommendation, so your suggestions will help a lot - as will PanzerJaeger's.

[Hax]

Much of my reflection on this subject has been through the writing of Robert Fisk, both journalistically and from his book "The Great War for Civilisation".

Robert Fisk is an excellent reporter. My father gave me two of his books a while ago, I've almost finished reading "The Great War for Civilisation" and will start with "The Age of the Warrior" soon.

[PanzerJaeger]

his [PJ] evidence as far as i'm aware is only backed up by 2 books he linked but failed to reference, and when pressed he produced a bunch of links that were already of dubious quality, if i had to link to think tank based websites i'd produce a whole page myself.

Here's a quick rundown of what happened, just so you're not confused. Out of the paragraphs and paragraphs of easily verifiable information I've written in this thread, you picked out one sentence that was obviously my educated opinion. If it wasn't obvious, I told you it was my opinion in no uncertain terms. Still you demanded sourcing, so I found you multiple sources from multiple intellectuals dated from 1995 to 2010 who share the opinion that there are deep rooted structural issues in Arab society that are holding back modernization. You seemed intent not on discussing the issue, but attacking the credibility of the sources, zeroing in on two of them claiming some neo-Conservative bias, despite the fact the authors were arguing against neo-Conservative dogma. (You may want to do a bit more research on Freedom House - it has been in existence far longer than the neocon movement itself.)

Then, when asked to provide some counter-sources yourself - which is not at all hard to do (Here you go, Banquo) - you gave one commentary, one book by an admitted polemicist and 9/11 Truther who only came to prominence after he was recommended by Osama bin Laden (how's that for a questionable source?), and a link to Salon.com - not a specific article on Salon, just Salon.com.

Here are some more sources that may be of some interest. Each of them discuss various structural issues within Arab culture and civil society that impede modernization. As I said much earlier in this thread, revolution is the easiest part of a democratic transition. The Arab Spring will have to contend with and overcome these issues if it is to become a truly democratic movement and not one of dozens of Arab revolutions that have ended in authoritarian rule.

Civil Society in the Arab World: The Missing Concept

The Islamic Shield: Arab Resistance to Democratic and Religious Reforms

Civil Society and the Democratization in the Arab World

Civil Society and Democratization in the Arab World: The Dynamics of Activism (Not the same as the one above.)

And, gasp, a book from the '90s that I read several years ago and is just as relevant today as it was when published.

Neopatriarchy: A Theory of Distorted Change in Arab Society

Focusing on the region of the Arab world--comprising some two hundred million people and twenty-one sovereign states extending from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf--this book develops a theory of social change that demystifies the setbacks this region has experienced on the road to transformation. Professor Sharabi pinpoints economic, political, social, and cultural changes in the last century that led the Arab world, as well as other developing countries, not to modernity but to neopatriarchy--a modernized form of patriarchy. He shows how authentic change was blocked and distorted forms and practices subsequently came to dominate all aspects of social existence and activity--among them militant religious fundamentalism, an ideology symptomatic of neopatriarchal culture. Presenting itself as the only valid option, Muslim fundamentalism now confronts the elements calling for secularism and democracy in a bitter battle whose outcome is likely to determine the future of the Arab world as well as that of other Muslim societies in Africa and Asia.

Also, let me just say that I have tried to diffuse the situation by ignoring your ad hominems and providing you with sources that give some backing to my opinion. That hasn't worked, so allow me to pursue a more direct route. While I remain unchanged in my opinion, I do apologize if I've offended you. There was no racism meant in my comments, only a criticism of the dominant culture in the region which has adherents of many races. Obviously, I can travel a few hours North to Dearborn to see Arabs who have abandoned certain elements of their culture and successfully embraced the democratic process.

[Leet Eriksson]

Let us begin shall we:

Here's a quick rundown of what happened, just so you're not confused. Out of the paragraphs and paragraphs of easily verifiable information I've written in this thread, you picked out one sentence that was obviously my educated opinion. If it wasn't obvious, I told you it was my opinion in no uncertain terms. Still you demanded sourcing, so I found you multiple sources from multiple intellectuals dated from 1995 to 2010 who share the opinion that there are deep rooted structural issues in Arab society that are holding back modernization. You seemed intent not on discussing the issue, but attacking the credibility of the sources, zeroing in on two of them claiming some neo-Conservative bias, despite the fact the authors were arguing against neo-Conservative dogma. (You may want to do a bit more research on Freedom House - it has been in existence far longer than the neocon movement itself.)

The Freedom house publishes an annual report for the "free-est" countries, they still aren't really relevant. You mention your latest article to be November the 14th 2010, the arab spring happened in 2011, obviously it'll take years before actual democracy is attained, it is none the less a crucial movement for the countries involved.

Then, when asked to provide some counter-sources yourself - which is not at all hard to do (Here you go, Banquo) - you gave one commentary, one book by an admitted polemicist and 9/11 Truther who only came to prominence after he was recommended by Osama bin Laden (how's that for a questionable source?), and a link to Salon.com - not a specific article on Salon, just Salon.com.

If you read my post properly, he asked for an anti-imperialist book, William Blum isn't a truther, he may sympathise or ask questions about government complacency but isn't really outright conspiracy theory of zionist engineered 9/11s or whatever the truther movement is about, being recommended by bin laden or hitler doesn't really matter either, that is just a red herring, the actual content of the book is meticulously sourced and documented, he even uses mainstream sources to argue his points.

On the other hand your sources are actually neoconservative drivel, once again, looking through one of the Links, you linked the Middle East Quarterly, a website funded by the Middle East Forum, that actually only has one, yes one researcher on the middle east, rather shoddy work there, especially when the guy (Daniel Pipes) already got discredited by Christopher Hitchens and Juan Cole.

"In 2002 Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan who has been a target of Campus Watch, criticized MEF in Salon magazine, writing that "The Middle East Forum is not really a forum. Somebody rich in the community has set Pipes up with a couple of offices and a fax machine and calls him a director." Salon noted that "aside from Pipes, the Middle East Forum has a single researcher, whose job, according to the Web site, extends into fundraising."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_...orum#Criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christo...ic_individuals <-- Scroll down to Daniel Pipes

Here are some more sources that may be of some interest. Each of them discuss various structural issues within Arab culture and civil society that impede modernization. As I said much earlier in this thread, revolution is the easiest part of a democratic transition. The Arab Spring will have to contend with and overcome these issues if it is to become a truly democratic movement and not one of dozens of Arab revolutions that have ended in authoritarian rule.

Civil Society in the Arab World: The Missing Concept

The Islamic Shield: Arab Resistance to Democratic and Religious Reforms

Civil Society and the Democratization in the Arab World

Civil Society and Democratization in the Arab World: The Dynamics of Activism (Not the same as the one above.)

And, gasp, a book from the '90s that I read several years ago and is just as relevant today as it was when published.

Neopatriarchy: A Theory of Distorted Change in Arab Society

This is hilarious, let me quote one racist gem:

"Does Arab civil society actually exist? Is the increase in the number of registered civil society organizations (CSOs) an adequate indication of its existence?"

the second question literally contradicts the first.

Lets see what happens when you replace arab with jewish:

"Does Jewish civil society actually exist? Is the increase in the number of registered civil society organizations (CSOs) an adequate indication of its existence?"

Give me a good reason why i should even bother looking through the other links.