Noted Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis recently published a piece in Foreign Affairs called "Freedom and Justice in the Modern Middle East". The theme of it is that "To speak of dictatorship as being the immemorial way of doing things in the Middle East is simply untrue. It shows ignorance of the Arab past, contempt for the Arab present, and lack of concern for the Arab future. Creating a democratic political and social order in Iraq or elsewhere in the region will not be easy. But it is possible, and there are increasing signs that it has already begun."
He begins by giving an overview of traditional Arab rule and notes the important role of consultation. Rulers consulted with tribal chiefs, the rural gentry, and scribes, among others. Lewis goes on to describe the downfall of this system as having happened in two phases. Napolean's incursion in the 19th century is first while the siding of the rulers of Syria-Lebanon with the Vichy in 1940 was the other. Nazi ideology entered the scene:
It was at that time that the ideological foundations of what later became the Baath Party were laid, with the adaptation of Nazi ideas and methods to the Middle Eastern situation. The nascent party's ideology emphasized pan-Arabism, nationalism, and a form of socialism. The party was not officially founded until April 1947, but memoirs of the time and other sources show that the Nazi interlude is where it began.
...
Since 1940 and again after the arrival of the Soviets, the Middle East has basically imported European models of rule: fascist, Nazi, and communist. But to speak of dictatorship as being the immemorial way of doing things in that part of the world is simply untrue. It shows ignorance of the Arab past, contempt for the Arab present, and unconcern for the Arab future. The type of regime that was maintained by Saddam Hussein -- and that continues to be maintained by some other rulers in the Muslim world -- is modern, indeed recent, and very alien to the foundations of Islamic civilization. There are older rules and traditions on which the peoples of the Middle East can build...
Lewis concludes on a hopeful note for democracy in Iraq:
The creation of a democratic political and social order in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East will not be easy. But it is possible, and there are increasing signs that it has already begun. At the present time there are two fears concerning the possibility of establishing a democracy in Iraq. One is the fear that it will not work, a fear expressed by many in the United States and one that is almost a dogma in Europe; the other fear, much more urgent in ruling circles in the Middle East, is that it will work. Clearly, a genuinely free society in Iraq would constitute a mortal threat to many of the governments of the region, including both Washington's enemies and some of those seen as Washington's allies.
The last part is very interesting. What will Washington do if democracy in Iraq threaten its enemies but, at the same time, threatens its friends? What does Neo-Con dogma say about a democratic Iraq making Syria more amenable to our wiles but Saudi Arabia less so? After his re-election (and I use the term loosely), Bush took a Wilsonian stance. As Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progrssive, noted in a speech that I reprinted a few entries ago, Bush said, "we are delivering the gift of freedom to the people of Iraq." But Wilson spoke of making the world safe for democracy, not imposing it. Even Lewis notes that the Middle East "has basically imported European models of rule". Wilson was a great supporter of the League of Nations, a supporter of the notion that a deliberative body of people from around the world could bring a collective wisdom to bear on the problems around the globe. This idea is very utopian and a true consensus of the world is impossible. But is a "Consensus of the Willing" good enough when it comes to issues affecting the whole world? If democracy begins to flourish in Iraq, can America alone protect it? Doesn't it take a village to raise a democratic state? Will we have to re-invade Iraq at some point like we did Cuba in 1906 and 1917?
James L. Payne writes for The Independent Review that he thinks that the minimum requirement for a functioning democracy to take hold in a country is the "restraint in the use of violence in domestic political affairs." If this is true or if it is at least a significant part of the equation in Iraq, then what are the prospects for peace & democracy there? With the Coalition of the Willing shrinking and America's armed forces being spread out ever thinner, is it reasonable to expect an imposition of peace on Iraq so that domestic violence is quelled? Payne cites Philips Cutright and Jared Diamond when he suggests that the relative wealth of the members of a society bears upon domestic strife. If Bush is delivering the gift of freedom to the people or Iraq, then he is also delivering the gift of profits to his cronies. Millions and millions of dollars that were to have been used for rebuilding Iraq are unaccounted for. Haliburton and other mega-companies are reaping huge profits, in part because they are doing some jobs which should be done by Iraqis. I did read recently - I think it was in Time - that the average annual wage of Iraqis has gone from three hundred some odd to four hundred some odd dollars in the past year. Good news, certainly. So how long can that growth continue? After having accumulated how much wealth does a population become unlikely to commit acts of domestic violence? Iraq's economy is based upon the exportation of oil. Now, if America is seriously committed to alternative fuels, how will this impact Iraq? I suppose that India and China will be gobbling up fossil fuels for decades yet.
I really didn't mean to blather on like this but I find myself frustrated at all the prognosticators in the media saying that we'll be able to pull out of Iraq next year or in 5 years, minimum. While I don't know anyone in the service on the ground in Iraq, I do know that I want them to stop dying. Bush and the NeoCons have committed us to a war against an idea, terrorism, which can only last until we decide to stop it. So who knows how long we can expect our young men and women to return broken up on the inside as well as the outside. I'm tired of Bush's appeals to his deity and to concepts in explaining our involvement there. I want to know how many thousands of well-trained police officers need to be there before we leave. I want to know what percentage of water filtration and electricity generating plants need to be operational before we leave. I don't want a date for withdrawl but I would like some specific criteria.
We the people now believe that it's time
We're demanding our rights to the answers
We elect a precedent to a state of mind
No comments:
Post a Comment