Democracy in the Middle East

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is a lot of hot air spoken about the democracy movement in Syria. It has become the cursus bellum for many Euro participants and the USA. Despite this we seem to be on the same side (for the moment) of Putin whose position is clear enough - at least honestly in support of Assad's counter-rebel regime.
I think it highly likely that the so-called pro-democracy movement is more a creation of the western media, than a viable reality. I'm not saying it does not exist at all, but only in such small numbers that it could never prevail in the way it would wish; namely democratically. There are simply too many forces who would rather gain power by other means. The minimum requirement of a democracy to have the potential to flourish is that the majority of the people are willing to support it, and where necessary give in to the will of the majority over key issues of policy. I think it possible that no such place exists in the ME outside Turkey and Iran. Wracked by sectional, tribal and religious differences relying on tradition and dogma is the default position and leadership by strong dictators necessary. The Western model of democracy has failed in Iraq and Egypt and I see no reason it can succeed in the near future in any other ME country. When it does succeed, such as in Palestine with the voting in of Hamas, and in Iran the western powers do not respect its decisions.

[Conde Lucanor]

I think it is generally agreed now that Middle East states were the artificial creation of European powers after WWI, so as political projects have very little to do with the values of modern liberal democracy.

[Impenitent]

democracy? 10 criminals vote on which bank to rob...

that's democracy

did you expect a constitution that runs counter to the Quran?

-Imp

[Arising_uk]

democracy? 10 criminals vote on which bank to rob...

that's democracy

did you expect a constitution that runs counter to the Quran?

-Imp

Indonesia appears to manage. I'm puzzled about which part of the Koran is against a constitution?

[Impenitent]

democracy? 10 criminals vote on which bank to rob...

that's democracy

did you expect a constitution that runs counter to the Quran?

-Imp

Indonesia appears to manage. I'm puzzled about which part of the Koran is against a constitution?

depends on the constitution, especially a constitution that expresses women's rights...

-Imp

[Arising_uk]

depends on the constitution, especially a constitution that expresses women's rights...

-Imp

The Bible had no such rights and a constitution appeared to arise?

[Hobbes' Choice]

democracy? 10 criminals vote on which bank to rob...

that's democracy

did you expect a constitution that runs counter to the Quran?

-Imp

Indonesia appears to manage. I'm puzzled about which part of the Koran is against a constitution?

One example does not invalidate the claim.

There is always a natural tendency in democracy to lean towards and encourage tyranny. This has been recognised since Aristotle. There are numerous examples where democracy has been voted out of its own existence. This is not a phenomenon exclusive to Islam, but one immediately thinks of Nazi Germany, and more subtly modern America that has lost any kind of democratic credibility by its limited choice and variation across parties.

One thing that such moves do have in common, is a human tendency to follow the leader, and ideologies that encourage compliance and discourages free thinking and critical thinking are more susceptible to the loss of democratic process and the replacement with a tyrant.
All religions have this susceptibility from the simple fact that they expect their followers to take everything on faith and to put trust in higher powers.
The schisms of faith can help to mitigate this problem, but where observance is high, tends to lead to the marginalisation of the minority schism, and the promotion of the dominant force.

[FlashDangerpants]

How many democracies have ever been established in a swift or bloodless manoeuvre?

When the French took a crack at it, they had a violent revolution where they cut off the king's head. Then they had a couple of years chaos while everyone tried to work out a democratic power structure - followed by some more head chopping. Then they had 'The Terror' and killed about 10,000 nuns. That was followed by a triumvirate (which began with a giant massacre), and then they had an emperor for a bit until he lost a really big war. So after that, they went back to variations on the theme of kings for a number of decades. Interspersed with a couple more revolutions of course.

But nobody ever said the French were peculiarly incapable of democracy. And they seem to have got the hang of it in the end.

[Hobbes' Choice]

How many democracies have ever been established in a swift or bloodless manoeuvre?

When the French took a crack at it, they had a violent revolution where they cut off the king's head. Then they had a couple of years chaos while everyone tried to work out a democratic power structure - followed by some more head chopping. Then they had 'The Terror' and killed about 10,000 nuns. That was followed by a triumvirate (which began with a giant massacre), and then they had an emperor for a bit until he lost a really big war. So after that, they went back to variations on the theme of kings for a number of decades. Interspersed with a couple more revolutions of course.

But nobody ever said the French were peculiarly incapable of democracy. And they seem to have got the hang of it in the end.

Because it is difficult but achievable does not mean it is achievable nor even desirable for Islam. Anglophone democracy has taken 800 years from Magna Carta to the ex-imperial versions all over the world, but is in a constant state of challenge and reform, always guarding agains the sort of tyranny we currently 'enjoy' in the UK, with a severe right-wing government validated by only 25% of the people who could have voted.

The closest anyone has come to the bloodless establishment of a democracy was the little band of Vikings that settled in Iceland fleeing the emerging power hungry Earldoms that were fast becoming kingdoms. They benefitted from an age old Norse/Germanic tradition of the warrior's assembly of free men gathered together to form war bands, that you can read about from as far back as Tacitus.
Like the Greeks, small scale societies of individuals with common interests brought together with oaths of allegiance seems a natural way to invent democratic institutions of the kind that flourished for such a short time in the fifth Century bce.
The opportunity for such a primitive evolution of democracy is no longer possible.

Islam would have to do it the hard way, and that means circumnavigating the ideological minefield of religion, tribalism and sectarianism. Political parties tend to reflect Shia, Sunni, Allawhite, Waabism, Bedouin, and any number of other identities.

[spike]

There is a saying "If you want to make an omelette you have to break eggs".

The omelette in this instance is democracy, democracy in the Middle East. The eggs that need breaking to make way for democracy are the ancient traditional cultures of the Middle East that are standing in the way of its development.

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is a saying "If you want to make an omelette you have to break eggs".

The omelette in this instance is democracy, democracy in the Middle East. The eggs that need breaking to make way for democracy are the ancient traditional cultures of the Middle East that are standing in the way of its development.

The west might be keen to impose the omelette upon oil rich nations so they can sell them their white goods, but I do not think we have any reason to assume that democracy is the inevitable evolved state of affairs.
The other thing to note is that omelettes come in many types with a range if different fillings and consistencies. What makes you think that the post-democratic American model of plutocracy is applicable to the ME, or anywhere else for that matter - even the USA?

[spike]

Hobbes' Choice,

Democracy's intent is to create open, secular, pluralistic societies. Such societies works best and are more resilient no matter what part of the world adopts it. Not all democracies have to be the same as long as they adopt the central principle, government of the people, for the people and by the people.

Democracy's other intention is to combat tyranny and keep it at bay, which in itself is good.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes' Choice,

Democracy's intent is to create open, secular, pluralistic societies. Such societies works best and are more resilient no matter what part of the world adopts it. Not all democracies have to be the same as long as they adopt the central principle, government of the people, for the people and by the people.

Democracy's other intention is to combat tyranny and keep it at bay, which in itself is good.

You have things backwards. Democracy has no intent, it is a consequence. It is a consequence of the tendancy of people to accept openness, secularism and pluralism. And can only thrive in those circumstances.
You cannot impose democracy and expect openness and pluralism to be the result.
That is why the American neo-con project is misconceived and has failed in several instances. Not only does the US seem to want to impose democracy, but democracy which has reached the result, not of the people's choice, but one acceptable to the USA.

[attofishpi]

I remember the video footage of the streets of Syria being filled with decent people wanting democratic change. Then Assad had snipers on the tops of buildings taking out the innocents before deciding to literally bomb the shit out of them. Then eventually the likes of the US and UK wanted to have a military intervention to remove Assad, but Russia and China vetoed any chance of an intervention in the UN council.
Russia - scum China scum...now look at where things are.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I remember the video footage of the streets of Syria being filled with decent people wanting democratic change. Then Assad had snipers on the tops of buildings taking out the innocents before deciding to literally bomb the shit out of them. Then eventually the likes of the US and UK wanted to have a military intervention to remove Assad, but Russia and China vetoed any chance of an intervention in the UN council.
Russia - scum China scum...now look at where things are.

The media are playing you well.