The Middle East, "Western" Democracy and the Role of the West
Developments in the Middle East, and particularly in Iraq, have made many question the western efforts to intervene in the Middle East and promote democracy. Objectors to intervention in the matter provide various arguments; some of which are tainted with bigotry. Some argue that the west has no right to impose what they see as "its democracy" where there is no cultural infrastructure for that; while others argue that any such change should only come from within. So considering these two arguments, coming from completely different points of view of the Muslim-Arab world, should the west intervene for democratic reforms? The answer is - according to this author – a definite yes, but only to provide a safe framework for change from within.
The argument, that the Arab world does not have cultural infrastructure for reforms; and that it is not right for the west to impose "its version" of democracy, is dangerous. To counter it, I will first address the issue of "western style" democracy and then will elaborate on the matter of cultural infrastructure. Finally I will address the question of whether the west should intervene or let the revolution from within take its course.
One of the biggest dangers for democracy is the fallacy that there should be some gray in democracy as manifested through different versions of democracy like western democracy. Women's rights, sectarian genocide and other basic rights of democracy including freedom of speech, should not be left to the grey area. There is no way we can say that the revoking of women's rights can be a part of any kind of democracy, western or other. Doing so does not only diminish from the principle of democracy; but also from the dignity and honor of women in the Arab-Islamist world. Can anyone truly believe that a woman could really agree to being stoned for being raped the way Muktar May was? With this fallacy of "western" style democracy addressed, we need to ask ourselves the next question: with the supposed lack of cultural infrastructure for democracy; should the west stay out?
Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that there is no infrastructure; so what? If there is no infrastructure for prevention of genocide, should the west stay out? If there is no infrastructure for women's rights, should the west again stay out? If there is no infrastructure for dissent and religious freedom should the west stay away from that too? I believe that the answer should be obvious to everyone and it is no. Those who advocate otherwise in supposedly the name of human rights and sovereignty should reconsider; particularly because it seems they do so out of hatred to America than anything else. They want to bring to the Middle East all the principles of democracy without calling it democracy because President Bush used the word. How unfortunate for the oppressed people of the Middle East; people like Abdul Rahman from Afghanistan whose sole crime was to convert from Islam to Christianity 15 years ago. Because in the run up to this, without noticing, those people calling for an end to intervention play right into the hands of Islamist\dictatorial regimes in the Middle East, who also hate America for putting an end to their oppressing of people like Mr. Rahman. Progressive international law is all about Human Rights such as religious freedom rather than sovereignty and those who talk about occupation and invasion should remember that. They must ask themselves what is the direction they think humanity and international law should take: is it a world where sovereignty prevails over individual freedom? Or a world where individual human rights are at the heart of things? Whatever the answer they choose may be, the elementary question remains: even if there is a case for the so-called "western style" democracy to be developed in the Middle East, and the infrastructure exists, should this not be the role of the people to do so on their own? Well, yes and no.
If we take the idea that the reforms in the Arab-Muslim world should only come from an internal desire; and couple that with the so far lack of success in the matter, only one conclusion can be derived. That the Arab people of the Middle East do not want reform. I find it highly improbable. If this was the case why do thousands flee the Middle East to the West every year? Why do women who do not object to the way they are being treated back there complain? These questions lead to the conclusion that the people of the Middle East have had it and do want reforms. It also corresponds to my basic belief in humanity (call it naïve if you want) that deep down all human beings want the same basic things – food on the table, better future for their kids than the one they had, and peace and quiet – and that it is those things that should serve as the common grounds to cover the different perceptions on how they are to be achieved. So with the understanding that people in the Middle East want the reforms – why did they not succeed in bringing them on their own so far? The answer to that lies in the basic reason for why the west should intervene.
It is the custom of oppressive regimes to use force against their people. Though this should be quite obvious to many; it is not obvious to many people who seem to be asking the question: why not let the people of the Middle East do it on their own? Whenever I am being asked this, I go through a ritual of an answer that only married people could understand. I ask the person whether he/she is married and whether he/she has a father in law. When the answer is yes I ask whether he/she would characterize their relations as good. Regardless of the answer I add that Saddam also had two sons in laws who he did not get along with and that have fled to Jordan; and that once he convinced them to return, they were both hanged at the town square in Baghdad. Finally I ask that considering this kind of atmosphere, would that person rise against oppression. The same use of violence for intimidation is also true for the Palestinian Authority's and other regimes' Islamist groups who at times hang people for suspicion of collaboration with Israel even if this is not the case, simply to quiet dissidents and prevent criticism and change of their ways. Intimidation through scapegoats has always been the way of oppressive regimes and has always worked until an outside force ended it.
Given all that was discussed so far, the answer to our opening questions about western role in the Middle East should be clear. It is to facilitate change that will usher in the hardcore principles of democracy. The desire is already there and eventually it will overcome the oppressive regimes even without western help. However it will be done throughout the Middle East the old fashion way at a human cost that will make the Iraqi war costs so far pale in comparison. And this will be unfortunate, because as human beings our objective is to improve.
The argument, that the Arab world does not have cultural infrastructure for reforms; and that it is not right for the west to impose "its version" of democracy, is dangerous. To counter it, I will first address the issue of "western style" democracy and then will elaborate on the matter of cultural infrastructure. Finally I will address the question of whether the west should intervene or let the revolution from within take its course.
One of the biggest dangers for democracy is the fallacy that there should be some gray in democracy as manifested through different versions of democracy like western democracy. Women's rights, sectarian genocide and other basic rights of democracy including freedom of speech, should not be left to the grey area. There is no way we can say that the revoking of women's rights can be a part of any kind of democracy, western or other. Doing so does not only diminish from the principle of democracy; but also from the dignity and honor of women in the Arab-Islamist world. Can anyone truly believe that a woman could really agree to being stoned for being raped the way Muktar May was? With this fallacy of "western" style democracy addressed, we need to ask ourselves the next question: with the supposed lack of cultural infrastructure for democracy; should the west stay out?
Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that there is no infrastructure; so what? If there is no infrastructure for prevention of genocide, should the west stay out? If there is no infrastructure for women's rights, should the west again stay out? If there is no infrastructure for dissent and religious freedom should the west stay away from that too? I believe that the answer should be obvious to everyone and it is no. Those who advocate otherwise in supposedly the name of human rights and sovereignty should reconsider; particularly because it seems they do so out of hatred to America than anything else. They want to bring to the Middle East all the principles of democracy without calling it democracy because President Bush used the word. How unfortunate for the oppressed people of the Middle East; people like Abdul Rahman from Afghanistan whose sole crime was to convert from Islam to Christianity 15 years ago. Because in the run up to this, without noticing, those people calling for an end to intervention play right into the hands of Islamist\dictatorial regimes in the Middle East, who also hate America for putting an end to their oppressing of people like Mr. Rahman. Progressive international law is all about Human Rights such as religious freedom rather than sovereignty and those who talk about occupation and invasion should remember that. They must ask themselves what is the direction they think humanity and international law should take: is it a world where sovereignty prevails over individual freedom? Or a world where individual human rights are at the heart of things? Whatever the answer they choose may be, the elementary question remains: even if there is a case for the so-called "western style" democracy to be developed in the Middle East, and the infrastructure exists, should this not be the role of the people to do so on their own? Well, yes and no.
If we take the idea that the reforms in the Arab-Muslim world should only come from an internal desire; and couple that with the so far lack of success in the matter, only one conclusion can be derived. That the Arab people of the Middle East do not want reform. I find it highly improbable. If this was the case why do thousands flee the Middle East to the West every year? Why do women who do not object to the way they are being treated back there complain? These questions lead to the conclusion that the people of the Middle East have had it and do want reforms. It also corresponds to my basic belief in humanity (call it naïve if you want) that deep down all human beings want the same basic things – food on the table, better future for their kids than the one they had, and peace and quiet – and that it is those things that should serve as the common grounds to cover the different perceptions on how they are to be achieved. So with the understanding that people in the Middle East want the reforms – why did they not succeed in bringing them on their own so far? The answer to that lies in the basic reason for why the west should intervene.
It is the custom of oppressive regimes to use force against their people. Though this should be quite obvious to many; it is not obvious to many people who seem to be asking the question: why not let the people of the Middle East do it on their own? Whenever I am being asked this, I go through a ritual of an answer that only married people could understand. I ask the person whether he/she is married and whether he/she has a father in law. When the answer is yes I ask whether he/she would characterize their relations as good. Regardless of the answer I add that Saddam also had two sons in laws who he did not get along with and that have fled to Jordan; and that once he convinced them to return, they were both hanged at the town square in Baghdad. Finally I ask that considering this kind of atmosphere, would that person rise against oppression. The same use of violence for intimidation is also true for the Palestinian Authority's and other regimes' Islamist groups who at times hang people for suspicion of collaboration with Israel even if this is not the case, simply to quiet dissidents and prevent criticism and change of their ways. Intimidation through scapegoats has always been the way of oppressive regimes and has always worked until an outside force ended it.
Given all that was discussed so far, the answer to our opening questions about western role in the Middle East should be clear. It is to facilitate change that will usher in the hardcore principles of democracy. The desire is already there and eventually it will overcome the oppressive regimes even without western help. However it will be done throughout the Middle East the old fashion way at a human cost that will make the Iraqi war costs so far pale in comparison. And this will be unfortunate, because as human beings our objective is to improve.
posted by The Middle East News Addict at 12:51 PM
0 comments
