"Why We Will Never See Democracy in the Middle East"

[weasel]

from http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/20...ast&frame=true

I think this article makes it clear that our operations in the Middle East aren't just "America" versus "the bad guys" but West versus East . We're trying to establish something that is completely alien to them: a democratic, free society. And while I fully support the war on terror, this article seems to explain why there's been so much resistance on the part of the people we're trying to liberate. I'm glad we went into Iraq and Afghanistan but we may need to question who we think we are to try to change the very culture of these people regardless if it is right or wrong.

Your comments are appreciated.

[Jack]

It's a very interesting opinion piece, and I can appreciate the historical perspective the author brings.

In general, I agree with his assessment. Yet we can't predict the future.

Tribal-thinking people could evolve out of that mindset as their knowledge of Western customs increases. They could decide to adopt a Western style democracy if they felt it would result in a better life for themselves.

On the other hand, I could see where the author's description of tribal thinking nearly applies to what political parties are becoming in the U.S. Perhaps we're in danger of becoming more like them instead of getting them to be more like us.

[xyzer]

I agree ish! I think if the outside agitators stirring up sectarian violence could be eliminated Iraq just might be pushed into the wests concept of representative government...their tribal mentality notwithstanding. 9 million or so voted in their first attempt at a representative election..and this under pretty rough conditions.
I'm afraid its a long road at present...Iran and Syria are in the thick of it and having them back off is not easy particularly when none of the nations they have good relationships with seem to want to help the situation.Besides we are nearing election time and the Democrat political apparatus is going to continue stressing the negatives without offering any solutions except cut and run.
My fingers are crossed!

[Jern_Sandyer]

Yes there is some truth in that article but I pose one idea which could unravel that idea. Early Europe was Tribal as well and when Rome came along and captured most of Europe the different Tribes had the Roman Religion forced on them, then later when the Roman Empire converted to Christanity all those people covertered as well. But still some of the triabal differences existed causeing different cultures to form within the idea of christianity. Today these minorities exist but last time I checked they don't go blowing up innocent civilians. So what did Europe do right? And all cultures evolved out of Tribal living so the Middle east Tribalism isn't something that is totally different and radical.

[Autolykos]

First off, that "we" must be an exclusive one, because I am certainly not trying to establish democracy (or anything else) in the Middle East.

"The citizen" versus "the tribesman"? Give me a break. Wittingly or not, the author is providing justification to the two main camps of Iraq-war supporters. One camp believes in a modern-day version of "The White Man's Burden" -- Iraqis need to be "civilized". The other simply wants to see all Muslims and Middle Easterners wiped out. Both will read this article and proclaim that this is proof that they're right. In this vein, the author's statement that "the tribesman isn't 'wrong' or 'evil'" is a cop-out.

I understand that, due to the pattern-matching nature of human intelligence, people tend to emphasize differences over similarities. However, the similarities between individuals are vast. We're all humans, after all. What is wrong with such a view? This is not some collectivist, Kumbaya-singing vision -- it's one formed from reality. When one looks at people as humans, they treat them as individuals. Notice that one does not need democracy to adopt such a view.

- Rob

[RickSp]

Well as broad-brush overly simplistic essays reflecting the author's biases go, it was about what one might expect.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Autolykos First off, that "we" must be an exclusive one, because I am certainly not trying to establish democracy (or anything else) in the Middle East. "The citizen" versus "the tribesman"? Give me a break. Wittingly or not, the author is providing justification to the two main camps of Iraq-war supporters. One camp believes in a modern-day version of "The White Man's Burden" -- Iraqis need to be "civilized". The other simply wants to see all Muslims and Middle Easterners wiped out. Both will read this article and proclaim that this is proof that they're right. In this vein, the author's statement that "the tribesman isn't 'wrong' or 'evil'" is a cop-out. I understand that, due to the pattern-matching nature of human intelligence, people tend to emphasize differences over similarities. However, the similarities between individuals are vast. We're all humans, after all. What is wrong with such a view? This is not some collectivist, Kumbaya-singing vision -- it's one formed from reality. When one looks at people as humans, they treat them as individuals. Notice that one does not need democracy to adopt such a view. - Rob

What other forms of government do you feel foster this humanistic view? Where are these forms practiced?

[Autolykos]

Quote by: lsbskins1 What other forms of government do you feel foster this humanistic view? Where are these forms practiced?

I don't think any forms of government really foster that view.

- Rob

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Autolykos I don't think any forms of government really foster that view. - Rob

Where on earth do humans live in the manner you would like to see all humans live? If that place does not exist, what place most closely approiximates what you would like to see?

[ibm]

many related questions to be answered. such as:

is a modern western model of democracy always desirable for any nation in the world?
should the people of a nation choose what they want and what's best for them? if they want "our style" of democracy, should they fight for themselves?
can a democracy truly be implemented or installed by an external force? shall we do onto others the way we'd not like others do to us? how would we feel if the koreans have ways to force us have dog meat everyday (a gourmet in their mind)?
do WE really have a true democracy at home nowadays?

etc.

some are practical questions, some are rather philosophical. but imo thinking about the answers of there questions helps us think better.

[ibm]

any thoughts to the questions i listed?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: ibm many related questions to be answered. such as: is a modern western model of democracy always desirable for any nation in the world? should the people of a nation choose what they want and what's best for them? if they want "our style" of democracy, should they fight for themselves? can a democracy truly be implemented or installed by an external force? shall we do onto others the way we'd not like others do to us? how would we feel if the koreans have ways to force us have dog meat everyday (a gourmet in their mind)? do WE really have a true democracy at home nowadays? etc. some are practical questions, some are rather philosophical. but imo thinking about the answers of there questions helps us think better.

It depends on what you mean by a "western style democracy", as that is a very nebulous term. Look at the differences between the governments of the US, Britian, Canada and Germany. What is not desirable to countries like Iran or Iraq or any other developing nation is that we impose our strategic desires on them though the back door of our cultural norms, and our government is one of those "norms".

Take the issue of separation of church and state. It is almost axiomatic in the west that those spheres need to be separated. In Islam, at least, that idea is not the same. It is not the same probably because almost every social justice movement is the Islamic world came through the ulama holding rulers responsible under sharia. We view it as some sort of religious wet blanket that gets thrown over the fire of freedom, but that is not how Muslims see it. The problem is that by backing ruthless rulers who were viewed by the greater populations of their lands to be exploitative, we opened the door to the religious zealots who convinced the masses (who needed little convincing) that they would protect their rights more effectively by forcing sharia to be respected. (Iran and Afganistan)

Of course, when they came to power, they ended up being equally as repressive, but it was repression that was at least dressed up in a cultural set of rules they knew and understood. Why are we surprised they prefer their own norms to ours? I believe that the only truth that is spoken by the current administration is that the people of Iraq do want freedom, as do the people of Iran. But they do not want the freedom to wear bikinis. They want the freedom to pursue a good life for themselves and their families, within a framework that is Muslim. But, this is complicated by the undeniable fact of sectarian strife (in Iraq). But that is a topic for another thread.

[RickSp]

The 800 pound gorilla that is ignored by the essay is that for well over a hundred years the Western powers have worked very hard to suppress democracy in the Middle and continue to do so, to this day. Then when puppet governments fail to thrive it is easy for the imperialists to sit back and sniff "well, the blighters are tribalists after all. They aren't capable of supporting a democracy." The most self fulfilling of prophesies.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: ibm many related questions to be answered. such as: is a modern western model of democracy always desirable for any nation in the world?

The problem with impersonal statements like these is that they disregard who is making the consideration. In other words, whose point(s) of view do you mean here? Only when you answer this question will I be able to provide a clear answer.

should the people of a nation choose what they want and what's best for them? if they want "our style" of democracy, should they fight for themselves?

My answer would be yes.

can a democracy truly be implemented or installed by an external force?

I don't think so. External force can only remove impediments to a native establishment of democracy (or any other government, for that matter).

shall we do onto others the way we'd not like others do to us?

Shall "we" (meaning the government)? Yes, I believe "we" shall. However, I'll have no part in it, thank you.

how would we feel if the koreans have ways to force us have dog meat everyday (a gourmet in their mind)?

Maybe it's not so bad... besides, you have to wonder how many times you've actually eaten it already, in Oriental restaurants... :eek:

do WE really have a true democracy at home nowadays?

Depends on how you define "true democracy", but I doubt it.

Quote by: lsbskins1 Where on earth do humans live in the manner you would like to see all humans live? If that place does not exist, what place most closely approiximates what you would like to see?

I'm not really sure, to be honest. The tendency probably exists (nearly) everywhere, alongside other tendencies.

- Rob

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Autolykos I'm not really sure, to be honest. The tendency probably exists (nearly) everywhere, alongside other tendencies. - Rob

So, would you be satisfied with that answer from someone else? Not personal satisfaction, mind you, but satisfied in terms of feeling any level of knowledge had been added to the discussion? Do you wish to share your own ideas, or simply to act as a gadfly on the ideas of others? The "tendency" for what? I want you to articulate it. If you do not want me to guess at your ideas, or assume anything, you have to be willing to say something concrete.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: lsbskins1 So, would you be satisfied with that answer from someone else? Not personal satisfaction, mind you, but satisfied in terms of feeling any level of knowledge had been added to the discussion? Do you wish to share your own ideas, or simply to act as a gadfly on the ideas of others? The "tendency" for what? I want you to articulate it. If you do not want me to guess at your ideas, or assume anything, you have to be willing to say something concrete.

See the last paragraph in post #5. I've already explained it there.

- Rob

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Autolykos I understand that, due to the pattern-matching nature of human intelligence, people tend to emphasize differences over similarities. However, the similarities between individuals are vast. We're all humans, after all. What is wrong with such a view? This is not some collectivist, Kumbaya-singing vision -- it's one formed from reality. When one looks at people as humans, they treat them as individuals. Notice that one does not need democracy to adopt such a view. - Rob

This is the clear and concise statement of belief and philosophy that should answer any questions anyone would have about the way you believe humans should pattern their social interactons? Really?

[Autolykos]

Quote by: lsbskins1 This is the clear and concise statement of belief and philosophy that should answer any questions anyone would have about the way you believe humans should pattern their social interactons? Really?

What are you talking about? :eek:

I never claimed that what I wrote was some kind of panacea. A whole book could be written about how humans (should) pattern their social interactions. Is that what you want?

- Rob

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Autolykos What are you talking about? :eek: I never claimed that what I wrote was some kind of panacea. A whole book could be written about how humans (should) pattern their social interactions. Is that what you want? - Rob

No, I want you to give some clue as to what you support in terms of a workable system. I want you to offer a substitute that you can defend. It is easy to denounce democracy as imperfect, but you offer no alternative. Not in outline, not in specificity, not in name, not in...anything. We all know what you think does not fairly serve the needs of society. What do you think does or would?

[Autolykos]

Quote by: lsbskins1 No, I want you to give some clue as to what you support in terms of a workable system. I want you to offer a substitute that you can defend. It is easy to denounce democracy as imperfect, but you offer no alternative. Not in outline, not in specificity, not in name, not in...anything. We all know what you think does not fairly serve the needs of society. What do you think does or would?

This is getting too far afield, don't you think? :rolleyes:

- Rob