Unlike you I only don't apply relativistic definitions. None of the states in the Middle East are really Secular. Lebanon comes closest but it's really more "mult-confessional" so that the various groups are held in check by each other. Even so, it still remains the best hope for the region. Turkey used to be a forcibly Secular state but as those prohibitions have been relaxed so it has begun to slide towards popular Islamism, and like Lebanon it had to specifically recognise and demarcate the particular religious groups and give each defined rights to make it work (ish).
Israel is a real democracy, I'll give you that, and it has a very high development index but it's not remotely secular. In some ways it's less secular than the surrounding states. To enjoy all the benefits of Israel's democracy you have to be seen as both ethnically and confessionally Jewish (good luck being black).
Joradn might actually be Secular, but it's only the King that keeps it that way. King Hussain experimented with democracy in the 1980's but discovered that it led to Islamism so it's been rolled back somewhat since.
The first thing we need to do when dealing with the Middle East is accept the reality is presents - and that means not pretending nations are "Secular" or factions "Progressive" when they aren't.
Having said that, I have no problem dealing with a Shia Tyrant so long as he isn't murdering his own people. This is where Assad fell fowl of the West, after riots that were essentially sparked by economic problems.
Still, unlike you I don't have to pretend he's secular, or even tolerant.
Hey you know where else is quite Democratic and actually doesn't just treat women like chattel? Iran. It's not remotely secular either, though.
Something to reflect on, that.
Bookmarks