Edmund Burke and the Middle East.

[spike]

Edmund Burke (1729-1797) was a conservative political philosopher. He would be horrified at what is transpiring in the Middle East today, with all its violent social/political revolutions. He was a man of Reason and believed that social change could occur gently, that the transformation of societies should occur through deliberation and not through wrenching social upheavals like is now occurring throughout the Middle East.

Burke (Anglo-Irish) lived at the time of the French Revolution. At first he was supportive of it because he believed that French society needed to be reformed from top down. But when he saw it turn into a violent spectacle he was shocked and withdrew his support. The transformation wasn't occurring through the deliberation and reason he thought should occur. However, it didn't occur to him that a gentle, natural transformation was impossible in such a society because of the stubborn social/political intransigencies that existed. Transcendence in a peaceful fashion looked impossible. Furthermore, the rulers of France were determined that they were not going to give up any of their powers, powers they believed God had willed them. This kind of attitude set the stage for a violent social confrontation, as it did with the American and Russian Revolutions.

The same is happening in the Middle East, where a stubborn, intransigent culture exists that will not give to peaceful deliberation or reason. Unfortunately real transformation will first come through violent means because the region is still too fragmented and incapable of transforming through the deliberation and reason Burke was so convinced with.

[bobevenson]

Unfortunately real transformation will first come through violent means.

Should anybody else take part in this violence besides the warring parties?

[spike]

Edmund Burke was a conservative. He has been held up as a conservative. A favourite axiom of conservatives is that you can't change human nature. I am sure that is what Burke believed, and Plato before him. And that is why under conservatism the world would hardly ever change or progress, because of that deep-seated belief, that human nature doesn't change. That means that there would always be people who are born to rule and those that are born to be ruled, because that's human nature.

And that's been a big problem in the Middle East. It is full of conservative regimes that believe that those who rule are meant to rule and mustn't share their ruling with those who are not of their kind or tribe. That's the way of human nature, according to them. The mantra there has been rule or die. Imagine if that kind of political mindset still existed in the West. The West would still be violently feuding with itself, like they are now doing in the Middle East.

Part of human nature is inherently being undemocratic, to remain tribal, to practice segregation, to be unequal and ignore human rights. In the West we have been taught that we should transcend those tendencies, and for the most part we have. But in most of the Middle East such political and cultural transcendence has not yet occurred, hence the horrendous social upheavals there.

It is sad to see that Burke's and Plato's political ideas are still drawn on as ways of improving our present democratic melees.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Edmund Burke (1729-1797) was a conservative political philosopher. He would be horrified at what is transpiring in the Middle East today, with all its violent social/political revolutions. He was a man of Reason and believed that social change could occur gently, that the transformation of societies should occur through deliberation and not through wrenching social upheavals like is now occurring throughout the Middle East.

Burke (Anglo-Irish) lived at the time of the French Revolution. At first he was supportive of it because he believed that French society needed to be reformed from top down. But when he saw it turn into a violent spectacle he was shocked and withdrew his support. The transformation wasn't occurring through the deliberation and reason he thought should occur. However, it didn't occur to him that a gentle, natural transformation was impossible in such a society because of the stubborn social/political intransigencies that existed. Transcendence in a peaceful fashion looked impossible. Furthermore, the rulers of France were determined that they were not going to give up any of their powers, powers they believed God had willed them. This kind of attitude set the stage for a violent social confrontation, as it did with the American and Russian Revolutions.

The same is happening in the Middle East, where a stubborn, intransigent culture exists that will not give to peaceful deliberation or reason. Unfortunately real transformation will first come through violent means because the region is still too fragmented and incapable of transforming through the deliberation and reason Burke was so convinced with.

Burke covered his reluctance to any kind of change with the pretence that revolution is a bad thing. His battle with Thomas Paine reflects this: that truly he did not care for change and did not really understand the need for it. Paine on the other hand, being of 'lower birth' and having seen and experienced the plight of the poor and oppressed was not willing to wait generations to obtain the social respect that each of us deserve as members of society.
Paine was a true reformer and activist. Burke was nothing more than an armchair thinker.

The comparison between 18thC west and the current seems wholly without merit.
The American and French revolutions, and the British radicals caused social change in various degrees of violence, but they all shared something that in the ME seems absent. That is a progressive manifesto, which had the explicit aim of democratic change.
None of the various actors in the ME have anything remotely like a progressive manifesto.
And before you try to bring the US's claim to try to being democracy to to the region, think again. They might pay lip service to this idea, but who are we really kidding?

18thC France, Britain and American were characterised by changes from the inside, which were secular or atheistic moves to change the power structure of society and extend republican power to the people.

I'm puzzled why you think the ME is comparable to this., being a maelstrom of external and imperialistic interests designed to either reform the ME for the benefit of the foreign power, having little or no real concern for the people themselves.

[spike]

I'm puzzled why you think the ME is comparable to this., being a maelstrom of external and imperialistic interests designed to either reform the ME for the benefit of the foreign power, having little or no real concern for the people themselves.

The Middle East has been resistant to reform mainly because of its culture and religion. It has been behind the times. But now that reform is coming, albeit 500 years behind the West.

Why shouldn't reform come to the Middle East like it did to the West. The thing is that the Middle East was not touched by modernity in the same way the West was, at least not until quite recently, historically speaking. The modernization it lacked in comparison to the West thwarted the rise of the individualism that gave birth to the inside reformation that you mentioned happened in the West. If the Middle East wants to be part of the modern world, and take advantage of its technology and communications, it is going to have to make that sacrifice and adjust.

The Middle East doesn't have to reform itself just to suit foreign powers as you suggested, but in order that it continues to survive. It has no choice but to reform if it wants to keep its gleaming new cities and pay for them.

The reforms of the West were for the purpose of creating civil and just societies. This is why The Middle East has to reform and go through the trauma its going through, mainly for the reason of developing the civility and justice societies it lacks and are necessary to keep it vital and legitimate for its people.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm puzzled why you think the ME is comparable to this., being a maelstrom of external and imperialistic interests designed to either reform the ME for the benefit of the foreign power, having little or no real concern for the people themselves.

The Middle East has been resistant to reform mainly because of its culture and religion. It has been behind the times. But now that reform is coming, albeit 500 years behind the West.

Why shouldn't reform come to the Middle East like it did to the West. .

No reason why it shouldn't and no reason why it should. That FACT is that the ME has been going a completely different direction. Even where it gives the appearance of a move to democracy as in Egypt which is the best example, it chooses the Muslim Brotherhood which immediately moved to crush religious descent and begin a Theocracy.
In Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Bahrain there seems little enough appetite for democracy as a return to tribalism and more religious bigotry is in evidence.
But the real issue here is the fact of who is moving the change- and that is all about the US, Europe, Russian and their own international power struggles.

Different countries do not conform to the same evolutionary/ historical progress or pathway. Each has its own individual trajectory, and despite what people like say say; history does NOT repeat itself.

[wtf]

Furthermore, the rulers of France were determined that they were not going to give up any of their powers, powers they believed God had willed them. This kind of attitude set the stage for a violent social confrontation ...

Fortunately, those of us in the US have a democracy and our rulers are wise and just. Nothing like that could ever happen here.

[spike]

Whatever, as the jargon goes. However, I feel as though I have been driven off course. I started off talking about Edmund Burke and how he might view today's Middle East and its revolution.

Initially Burke may have viewed the Arab Spring, which started in Tunisia in 2011, as a good start for transforming the Middle East. But as he would see it grow more violent, as he saw with the French Revolution, he would have discredited it as being irrational and a lost cause. My point was, perhaps poorly presented, is that revolutionary change in such situations does not happen in the armchair, benign fashion (thanks to Hobbes' Choice observation) that Burke hoped and believed could happen.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Whatever, as the jargon goes. However, I feel as though I have been driven off course. I started off talking about Edmund Burke and how he might view today's Middle East and its revolution..

Um, a thing for which no one on earth is qualified.

[spike]

Um, a thing for which no one on earth is qualified.

More so than you think!

[Hobbes' Choice]

Um, a thing for which no one on earth is qualified.

More so than you think!

The first problem would be "if he were alive today."
Clearly this is impossible. But what have you got in mind? Pulling him out of time with a time machine from what(?) part of his life, and with what knowledge? Does he know about the intervening years? WW1? the settlement of the Allies in the breakup of Ottoman. Does he have any knowledge of current ME politics. Is he divested of his racism which would give him the view that blacks are inferior?

What is on your mind here?

[spike]

What is on your mind here?

You are right, we will never know for sure how Burke would respond to the revolution that is presently occurring in the Middle East. But that shouldn't stop us from using philosophers of the past to analysis today's circumstances. Plato is constantly used to highlight democracy's shortcomings and what he might do to fix it, like an article in present PN issue has attempted to do.

Philosophers of the past are often used as a way of drawing out and putting into context what is occurring in the present. For me, using Burke as I have is a means of helping explain the turmoil in the Middle East and why it is difficult to understand. Burke didn't understand revolution at all. He dismissed the French Revolution and its appalling consequences as unnecessary. But in hindsight he was wrong because it was the only way of removing, as a means of last resort, the social/cultural intransigencies that stubbornly insisted in standing in the way of reform.

Burke also evokes a conservative attitude that still prevails, that if social change is needed we should be gentle and careful that we don't upset things to much, even at the expense of doing nothing. His kind of attitude would and has exacerbated the situation, like it has done in the Middle East, with its stubborn, unreasonable leaders.

[Hobbes' Choice]

What is on your mind here?

You are right, we will never know for sure how Burke would respond to the revolution that is presently occurring in the Middle East. But that shouldn't stop us from using philosophers of the past to analysis today's circumstances. Plato is constantly used to highlight democracy's shortcomings and what he might do to fix it, like an article in present PN issue has attempted to do.

Plato's only remedy for the ill o democracy is ot have none of it. So thanks, but no thanks. Plato's way is Pinochet's way.

Philosophers of the past are often used as a way of drawing out and putting into context what is occurring in the present. For me, using Burke as I have is a means of helping explain the turmoil in the Middle East and why it is difficult to understand. Burke didn't understand revolution at all. He dismissed the French Revolution and its appalling consequences as unnecessary. But in hindsight he was wrong because it was the only way of removing, as a means of last resort, the social/cultural intransigencies that stubbornly insisted in standing in the way of reform.

Burke also evokes a conservative attitude that still prevails, that if social change is needed we should be gentle and careful that we don't upset things to much, even at the expense of doing nothing. His kind of attitude would and has exacerbated the situation, like it has done in the Middle East, with its stubborn, unreasonable leaders.

I'd like to be able to think that the Arab Spring was a move to democracy. And when I was in Egypt just before the shit hit the fan, it seemed obvious enough that it was sorely needed. The western press were falling over themselves to portray it as a democracy movement, but they were simply reflecting the minority views of a few western educated intelligentia.
When it came to the vote, Egypt elected the medieval superstition party, and soon enough a military dictatorship returned.
This does not have a precedent as far as I know, and I'd love to see you try to use a philosopher to explain it.

[spike]

I

I'd love to see you try to use a philosopher to explain it.

I will be the philosopher who will try to explain it because I don't know any others to draw on. Studying the workings of democracy is a fairly new field. And it's important having the situation in the Middle East to reflect on.

Egypt wasn't anywhere near ready for democracy at the start of the Arab Spring. Democracy is more than just about voting. It is a way of life, a cultural thing. In the West we have been practicing it for generations and it has become part of our DNA.

Democracy needs institutions to back it up and support it. It needs a inherent stability. It needs a secular pluralism. It needs the practise of individualism on a mass scale. It needs the separation of powers, like between church and state. It has to have the belief, at least in theory, that all are equal under the law. Egypt has none of this. Nor does it have the deliberative skills and networks to implement democracy broadly.

It took the West generations to cultivate and understand democracy. We can't expect a country like Egypt to pick it up just like that. Democracy is complex and complicated, with numerous contradictions and nuances, which can't be understood or implemented in a short period of time.

There is a cultural resistance to democracy in Egypt, like there is in most of the Middle East. It doesn't yet have the sensibilities to handle it. Burke might have said, Just get on with it! But they can't.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I

I'd love to see you try to use a philosopher to explain it.

I will be the philosopher who will try to explain it because I don't know any others to draw on. Studying the workings of democracy is a fairly new field. And it's important having the situation in the Middle East to reflect on.

Egypt wasn't anywhere near ready for democracy at the start of the Arab Spring. Democracy is more than just about voting. It is a way of life, a cultural thing. In the West we have been practicing it for generations and it has become part of our DNA.

Saying 'not ready' implies the inevitability of it by some sort of evolution. I disagree.

Democracy needs institutions to back it up and support it. It needs a inherent stability. It needs a secular pluralism. It needs the practise of individualism on a mass scale. It needs the separation of powers, like between church and state. It has to have the belief, at least in theory, that all are equal under the law.

No, the mother of western democracy has the church fully established within the state. And in fact this has guaranteed the secularisation of the democratic process. Compared to the USA, the Uk is far LESS religious for having the church controlled within the state.
I also disagree with the practice of individualism. Europe's most healthy democracies; Iceland, and the Scandinavian countries have a far more developed sense of community than the US and UK, whose democracies are sick in comparison.

Egypt has none of this. Nor does it have the deliberative skills and networks to implement democracy broadly.

It took the West generations to cultivate and understand democracy. We can't expect a country like Egypt to pick it up just like that. Democracy is complex and complicated, with numerous contradictions and nuances, which can't be understood or implemented in a short period of time.

There is a cultural resistance to democracy in Egypt, like there is in most of the Middle East. It doesn't yet have the sensibilities to handle it. Burke might have said, Just get on with it! But they can't.

I disagree. Egypt has a healthy respect for the voting process, on the ground. The trouble is that the brokers of power have not wanted to let it go.