I was reading this selection of articles and was wondering what you guys seriously think about the Arab world reforming itself?

The article speaks of the Arab League going over the details at their annual conference in Tunisia. I for one dont really expect much. The US is putting pressure on Arab leaders to come to global standards on human rights, equal rights for women, national suffrage, and democratically elected governments. I dont really see much if anything happening in those regards. I believe that the culture is too much established. The US is better off just pushing for education reforms in the Middle Eastern bloc. With knowledge comes power. It's not the US' job to establish democracies in other countries, in fact, it's almost a proven fact that forced democracy doesnt work well.

The Bush administration needs to stop nation building and begin people building. In almost every speech on terrorism, Bush talks about the conflict for the hearts and minds in the Middle East. However, he lacks the perception on how to better reach the distanced hearts and minds, I believe for one because he lacks knowledge on the region. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but Western culture is completely different than that of the Arab world.

It's the man on the street in the Arab world who will start lasting reforms, and it's going to take education for that to happen. I dont see lasting democracies in the Middle East any time soon because of the established monarchies and corrupt systems they already have in place. And they're not being helped by low literacy rates. The Arab World used to be one of the most advanced places on the planet, but radical Islam has destroyed much of their innovativeness, just as the Catholic Church suppressed Renaissance reforms...

Alright, I'll ramble more later, if you care to contribute, do so.

Here is the catch 22:

I agree with you about needing a grass roots start up and better education.

However, you are dealing with a culture that hinders education for certain groups, which will only cause further divide and distress.

I disagree that forced democracy doesn't work. CONTINUAL forced democracy doesn't work - at some time, you have to hand over the reigns, and you have to be very careful about the timing of it.

My case to prove my point is Japan and MacArthur. We were there 8 years in order to get them fully functional and self reliant. Why does everyone expect Iraq to be fixed in less than one, or everything's a failure?

The point is, even though you are in a sense forcing democracy in the beginning, if you mix that with incentives to keep democracy, then it can stand. But if you sit there and say "this is how it is; deal with it." Then issues will eventually occur.


But forced democracy can eventually lead to a self sufficient democracy: you just need to wean them off slowly.

But the culture in Japan is A LOT different than the Middle East. In Japan, and most other Asian countries, the culture is very elder oriented, meaning that they'll pretty much do as they're told as long as they're told to do something by someone they respect, like the Emperor.

I'm not saying that Asians are obedient and everything, it's just that their culture values respecting authority.

I don't see the middle east ever reforming itself completely. Steps might be taken, but it can't go too far. Foreign presence has been a nuisance to the natural evolution of these cultures for decades, and other countries trying to fix it only makes things even worse. Maybe if the region was completely left alone for a century or so, then you might see progress, but that's just not gonna happen as long as other countries have their own interrests to serve in being there.

It's impossible for any organization or government to 'solve' root causes. Only the ineffable effects of time and inevitable cross-cultural dissemination of ideas and mores will alter the Middle East (and the US, but that's not the subject). In the mean time, promoting education, pressuring oppressive regimes, and relieving poverty in applicable countries is most outsiders can aspire to.

Joren: Welcome back. Japan was largely democratic during the 1920s, and its civil leaders opposed attacking the US. Pearl Harbor represented a military coup of sorts. Also, I can't find any reference to any US casualties after the surrender. There is a difference between a bloodless occupation and Iraq.

Culturally, Japanese had a strong and overriding national identity, something that the fractured groupings in Iraq lack. In a strictly democratic Iraq, the Sunnis and Kurds are going to be screwed over. In Japan, there were no minorities to get screwed over.

Interestingly enough, MacArthur sought and gained Emperor Hirohito's support early on, even protecting him from prosecution as a war criminal.

So, yeah, there aren't any parallels.

I think Americans have to reflect on our own history before we spread democracy. Many American's fail to look back at our history and realize the degree to which we have suffered over the past 150 years, and just how far we have come on our own steam. People forget how recently human beings have actually been treated well in this country. I know that I don't have the authority to say this, but listening to people who have lived for 80+ years, they will tell you: the only thing about the good old days is that they're gone.

Likewise, I think that every country needs to suffer before it can actually take care of its people. I think in the case of genocide, America should step in, but in reality, there isn't too much else that America should do. For a country to develop into an industrialized nation, sacrifices must be made. Thats simply how it is. America did it, England did it... every developing nation had to suffer to get to a certain point.

150 years ago, it was legal for white men to own black men. Does it get much worse than that? How would we look back on our history if England came and said "stop doing that. Its naughty!"?

But the US and England did it wothout already developed nations exploiting them. Without help from developed nations, developing nations are going to find it very difficult to indutrialize on their own.

Yeah, they will need help to industrialize... but Democracy isn't help.

Actually, middle easterners have a high amount of respect for their elders. I don't know where you got the ideas otherwise.

Nice post, Schming (not sarcastic). There are already genuine democratic reform movements in every Arab country, even Saudi Arabia. The problem is they have no real sway with large parts of the population. There's also this perception that anyone who wants reform is an agent of the west, something people are *really* prickly about. The al Jazeera link you posted is a perfect example.. it's filled with editorials that resent Western pressure. Even though it touts itself as an independent news outlet, it's espousing the same sort of view as a lot of Arab rulers who are resistant to reform. Blah blah blah, we have to do things oooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuur way, we have to respect our traditions, and so on. It's a thinly-veiled excuse to remain in power, and nothing more.

As for the idiots - and yes, they're idiots - who claim that the Arab world will still be aaaaaaaaaaangry (enough to fly planes into our ****) if and when it becomes economically prosperous and democratic, well, I don't know what. They have their own agenda that has nothing with making America more secure nor with helping the Arab world realize its dreams. History has made it perfectly clear that people who live in societies where they have a fair crack at life, a say in their own governance, and are not threatened, do not fight. Seeing the Arab world reach that dream is in our interest because we'd rather like to not die, in theirs because it's the only environment in which people can live happy lives, and in everyone's because it is right.

I think the Arab world will only reform with outside pressure. The current governments are either too firmly entrenched and only support reformist movements when it suits their purposes, or simply too inept and paralyzed to do anything. In the first case, see the King of Morocco, Muhammad VI - he was much lauded by the West for signing into law a marriage reform bill. Women have equal property rights and all that **** - that's *great*, but it does nothing to further democracy in Morocco, and it *does* give him reformist credentials, however hollow. Thus, the monarchy is strengthened. As for the second case..um, what's that country where the Muslims go en masse every year? Saudi something?

It kind of goes without saying that the main problem is economic. Every successful democracy in the world is underpinned by a stable economy and economic opportunity. The Arab world, in general, is not. The middle class that should be pushing for greater freedoms, as it is in China and other countries, is literally shrinking. Whatever you think the solution is, you can't ignore the fact that the economic conditions in the region push young men out of the hands of democrats and into those of the Islamists.

The elections in Palestine were a fantastic thing - as if the notion that democracy in one Arab country would spark calls for it in another needed proof, not one day after the votes had been counted did a democratic group in next-door Egypt say something to the effect of "Hey, they chose their dude, and they have Israeli tanks in the streets. Why can't we"? Hopefully Iraq will have the same effect - if it does, not only will it be an example of Arab democracy, but it will also demonstrate that various religious and ethnic groups can coexist peacefully within the same state, a lesson sorely lost on Egypt, Sudan and ****-knows how many others.

Something I really take issue with, though - and it's spouted off by Eurocrats and Arab leaders alike, is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is distracting people fom democratization. The emergence of a Palestinian state will not democratize the Arab world, nor will a democratic revolution end the conflict. Palestine is a pretext young Arab men to vent their rage and a convenient outlet for Arab rulers who would prefer them standing inside the tent and pissing out. Imagine the car bombs - the very same young Arab men blowing themselves up in front of government offices - but in Cairo and Damascus rather than Haifa.

In sum, see my sig

Fundamentally, I agree. I disagree with some details... eh, I don't know if I want to feel obligated to this debate.

so... I agree.

The notion of Bush trying to convince other countries to become better with human rights is so laughable it's depressing. Also, there's the small issue of the USA supporting countries like Saudi Arabia that gives it exactly zero credibility among most.

Middle Easterners aren't going to do what America says simply because they don't think America is doing it for the Middle East; America does what's best for America.

And I don't think the problem is exclusive to the Middle East. Much of Africa is in a pretty crappy situation, too, but no one is talking about how to improve life there; simply because there are currently no Africans in armed resistance against America.

I think the solution is simply that America needs to butt out of other nations' problems. Much of the instability in the Middle East is a direct result of meddling; from the formation of Iraq, to Suez, to the formation of the modern Iranian state.

I'm not simply trying to demonise America here; America's just the latest in a long line of meddlers. Obviously America had very little to do with the formation of Iraq, and was on the "right" side of the Suez debacle (against Britain, France and Israel, no less, a situation I've always found amusing ;)) But its history in Iran and Saudi Arabia has been pretty crap; as has its policy of "we'll reward you for doing what we say with weapons". Weapons that, inevitably, get used poorly and for more destabilisation.

For the last 100 years, the Middle-East has always been under foreign intervention. It typically goes that the British Empire arbitrarily drew up some states and threw in some dictators. Some groups would oppose this dictatorship, and France or America would support a rebellion, a coup, and they would take over the country and usually end up being even more brutal and violent than the previous dictators. Occassionally, extreme Islamists would gain huge amounts of support just by bitterly opposing the government. Then along came the Cold War, and the Soviets would support anyone that even hinted at being socialist, and the Americans would support anyone else, and some sneakily got the support of both. The Middle East was a pawn used by the Americans and Soviets.
Perhaps it's time that the Middle East was simply left alone for a change. A lot of Arabs are justifiably sick and tired of foreign intervention, because historically that has only brought violence and brutal dictators. Perhaps they should just be left to develop as they wish, for once.

Would it be 'democratic'?

Well, Middle Eastern culture is different. It is not based on choice. And this is true of many cultures in Asia generally. It is not based on choice. It is based on roles. You are born into a role, and you fulfill it. If it was based on 'choice', then some of those roles simply wouldn't be filled.
India has long had a caste system, with a hierarchy of different ethnic groups being naturally superior to others. Iraq in particular has a similar system with tribes and sects. You do not choose which tribe you are in. You do not choose to be a Sunni or a Shi'ite. You are born into that tribe, you are born a Sunni or Shi'ite, and you follow your tribal identity. Tribal identity is very important in Iraq. The Ba'ath party openly opposed tribalism, but not even they could do much about it. And a 'democratic Iraq' must oppose tribalism too, or else 'democracy' will simply become a facade. It will be another way of fulfilling either tribal or religious roles. Shi'ites will vote for Shi'ites, Sunnis will vote for Sunnis, Kurds will vote for Kurds. You do not choose to be a Sunni, you do not choose to be a Shi'ite, and you obviously cannot choose to be a Kurd. You have no choice in what you are, so you have no choice in where you vote.
Iraq has the serious problem of bitterly opposing factions and violence between those factions. 'Democracy' is only going to make that worse, because it's pitting those factions against eachother in direct competition. Now, this isn't like the harmless mudslinging of Democrats at Republicans, this is a bitter feud that spans over a thousand years, and it isn't going to be 'sorted out' any time soon. Under the Ba'ath party, these factions were oppressed so that they couldn't fight and kill eachother, but now the floodgates are open. It's only going to get worse, and probably lead to a civil war. This sort of conflict isn't anything new, we've seen dozens of them throughout Africa in the last two or three decades, and it's going to become exactly like that, like the violence we've seen between Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda.

And speaking of Africa, that is a much bigger and more immediate problem. When Bush is 'promoting freedom', then 'exporting democracy' shouldn't be anywhere near the top of the list. Freedom from poverty is a far bigger issue. Yes, those in the Middle-East live under dictators, but at least they live. They have food, they have housing, they have security - this is far more than millions of people in Africa have.

A historical precident for this is Yugoslavia after Tito died.

Agreed!

The following is speculation.

I don't think invading a country and making it a democracy so it'll be a democracy is a wise thing to do. I think that in order for any kind of government change to hold up is for there to be support within the country itself. If there isn't a sizable portion of people willing to change and are willing to take the hardships of that change, it won't work. Afghanistan is a good example of it working however. There was a reasonably strong resistance and instead of invading the country all out we supported them with SOF and air support and had minimal conventional foot soldiers on the ground, part of this being because of the terrain as well. In the end it wasn't the US that took Afghanistan, it was the Northern Alliance and all the other tribes with the help of the US.

Now, Iraq is different in how it happened for a couple reasons. First, Saddam's military was far more formidable than that of the Taliban. That required more intervention on our part, which was also spurred on by the more favorable terrain which allowed more access for tanks and artillery. However, this terrain also allowed foreign fighters easier access to the country. What's ironic about this is most of these are fundamentalists, not Baathists. I guess they hated us more than Saddam. Now, I'm not sure how strong the resistance was against Saddam. I know the Kurds resisted him, but that was more of a seperatist attitude instead of a take over one. Also, even though Saddam fashioned himself after Stalin he didn't quite live up to his notoriety. While by no means glorious, the conditions the Iraqis lived under were not as oppressive as what the people under Stalin experienced or even those under the Taliban. That could be another reason for a bit of a rockier road in Iraq.

The roads to change in the Middle East are definitely economical and educational, for a nation to stabilise it needs a stable economical situation from which to build common wellfare and education, but in order to gain economical development the nation needs mental capital, which is achieved through higher education.
These are both things that take a long time to achieve since the lack of them forms a sort of vicious cycle. However, they are usually achieved through cultural exchange of ideas and mental capital. When we look into the nature of middle-eastern culture (Mort-Hog made an excellent post on that) it's obvious that things are going to have to happen the slow way. New ideas are already lifting their heads in middle-eastern nations and they will continute to do so, and with subtle help from developed countries the process can be sped up to some extent, but we must understand that the process will still take a long time to take root and grow, it's ridiculous to think that one nation can just barge in and declare democracy and a western way of life when the fundamental cultural differences alone are so great.
Patience and determination is what is needed.
(writing this all up in a hurry, I'm on my coffee break)

Oh, and this actually looks like a real, mature debate!! We need more of these!

Another point is that in the beginning, the United States wasnt the perfect democracy either. We had our share of problems and uprisings, i.e. - the Farmer's Rebellion, which finally led to the Congress being convinced that a national military was needed, notice not to protect us from others, but from ignorant forces inside.

Also, there's always going to be some amount of contention in a democracy, there's always the not so minor minority that feels they are being repressed and shut out of the process. In Modern day American culture, our response is to whine and complain and bide our time until the next elections, mainly because we've been brought up to respect the democratic process. Think if you didnt care or didnt believe if the election process was wholly... looking for the right word here... I guess watertight will do for now... and you didnt agree with it. If you dont believe in the process, and the institutions supporting the process, what is going to stop you from attempting to derail or destroy the process?

America was never a democracy until blacks and women got the vote.

I hate that assertion, because that's not the true definition of democracy.

Of course the U.S.A is not perfect. 300 million very different people, it's not so easy to please everyone.

As for the Middle East I really don't think it will change much. They are not going to change unless the West helps alot. If they hate the West so much why should we help them? They obviously don't want our help.

How can it possibly be rule by the people unless all the people can influence that rule?

After the signing of the Magna Carta, Britain was essentially ruled by noblemen. Within those nobes, it was more or less democracy, but the peasants had no say in it, so for the nation generally it wasn't democracy - it was rule by a social elite. The same with early America. Yes, the social elite was a lot 'bigger' and probably constituted a majority in itself, but it was still rule by social elite - white males.

I'm basing my argument on historical precedence. Many historians will say that Athens was the first democracy, while many academics will argue the true nature of democracy, claiming that since women, and slaves, couldnt vote that Athens was not a true democracy. You have to remember that women and slaves (blacks in the US) were not considered to be real people. It's not a reflection on the political institution, but rather the cultural beliefs of the population.

While there were stipulations to be allowed to vote, Athens, and early America, are still considered by many to be democracies.

You can argue terminology all day, but the real meat of this debate was whether or not the Middle East could develop a democratic system without external stimuli, not whether or not true democracy was in place in the Athenian or Early American systems.

Well, it is somewhat relevant, in that it shows that 'democracy' as we know it is a very new concept. I'm not sure when blacks and women got the vote in America, but I'm assuming both would have been some time in the early 20th century, making 'democracy' only 100 years old or so. So the actual pros and cons of 'democracy' are still being fleshed out, and in some circumstances the cons may heavily outweigh the pros.

Supposedly, blacks earned the right to vote just after the Civil War, but Jim Crowe and Poll-tests, or whatever they were called, were used to keep them down. Women earned the right to vote, I believe in 1919.

I've been reading de Tocqueville's Democracy in America and was wondering about Iraq.

If you set up a system where you get to elect a president or senators to make your laws, every few years, how is that self government?

When local government get's to take care of roads, zoning laws, property taxes, etc, and the people really get involved, isn't that real self-government?

I don't understand how the people are going to give a crap about who makes their laws when they can't control basic things like that.
granted I'm no political genius.

I supppose it still isn't a democracy because non-citizen residents can't vote either...

And similarly you have to be over 18 to vote.

But I think those are sensible conditions to be met. Which is what is important. Don't immediately assume that 'democracy' is a good thing and so being as democratic as possible is the most good. You should never rule towards democracy, you should rule towards logic. And limiting democracy to citizens over 18 is logical, but limiting it to white males isn't.