The crowds in public demanding open politics, democracy, and freedom in north Africa, Egypt, and in Arab states in the Middle East are using words that, to Western understanding, originate in parliamentary democracy. But no where in these regions of political turmoil (except Israel) are there strong local traditions of participatory democracy and freedom. We should support the movements for democracy and freedom, as they represent the ultimate goal of political change; but we should be cautious in believing that these countries will quickly and peacefully evolve into modern states with freedom and democracy.
The obstacles in the path of evolution to political modernity stem from the original event that created the political chaos: the destruction of the Ottoman (or Turkish) empire in World War I. Prior the World War I, The sultan of Turkey personally ruled a vast region stretching from the Turkish possessions in southeastern Europe (the Balkan peninsula), Turkey, Syria and Palestine (as the region now occupied by Israel and the so-called "Palestinians") was called), the Arabian peninsula, and north Africa west of Egypt (Egypt had been under British protection since 1881). The sultan was considered the caliph, the successor of the Prophet Mohammad. Turkey itself and the possessions of the Turkish Ottomans never evolved into a nation under Ottoman rule. The article on Turkey in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannic, written before the historical changes causes by the collapse in that war, explains the resulting political situation succinctly:
"Owing principally to the fact that the system of the caliph Omar came to be treated as an immutable dogma which was clearly not intended by its originator, and to the peculiar relations which developed therefrom between the Muslim Turkish conquerors and the peoples (principally Christian) which fell under their sway, no such thing as an Ottoman nation has ever been created. It has been a juxtaposition of separate and generally hostile peoples in territories bounder under one rule by the military sway of a dominant race."
The empire joined the first world war on the German side and was dissolved with its defeat. It fell into territorial jurisdictions along sectarian, ethnic, and local political lines, under the official administration or influence of the European victors. For instance, Syria became a French mandate. Iran was liberated by the British. Saudi Arabia was established as an independent state after several centuries of local opposition to Turkish rule. The new states that replaced the expansive empire were created from the outside and top down, rather than evolving out of local traditions of governance and community (as in the American colonies). State boundaries separated some hostile parties, such as Turk and Arab, Shiite and Sunni, but could not separate all of them. Personal loyalties were established on extremely particularistic values, such as clan, tribe, and sect. States were formed with little organic, internal social cohesion. This situation never changed. As a result, autocratic rule was a natural means of keeping social order. The paraphenalia of participatory democracy was often constructed, with political parties, elections, constitutions, and legislative bodies, but these were charades. Autocracy was supported by the West as a means of protecting their interests in oil and opposing Soviet communist totalitarianism in the region.
Now the autocrats are being challenged. The "people" demand that participatory democracy be made real. What political models are available for the former territories of the Ottoman empire?
1. An Islamic empire, ruled by a caliph, under Sharia, with no political democracy, encompassing all the former territories? This model is proffered by Osama Bin Laden and has great appeal to the totalitarian personalities nurtured by fundamentalist Islamic doctrine. But such an empire would have the same political flaws as the Ottoman empire it seeks to replace, which is that internal hostilities and differences prohibit political stability. Such an Islamic empire would simply repeat the history of the Turkish empire, which was continual local resistance based on particularistic values to the universal values of Islam.
2. Protectorates with independence guaranteed by some superpower, while local institutions of participatory democracy, freedom, and open society are nurtured until the new state is able to stand on its own? Since the US is the only superpower able to do such a task, this is not a possibility. The US does not wish to do so. Even it we did agree to undertake such a hopeless task of nation building, our role would only enlarge opposition to our task, as opposition parties and the Muslim Brotherhood invoked opposition to the US as an appeal for support for them. Would be want to be charge of half dozen Afghanistans? Hardly.
3. Autocratic rule, as before, but with commited effort by the West to generate, nurture, and enforce genuine institutions of democracy, freedom, openness, and tolerance. Well, the people won't stand for this, as this is what they are revolting against. Western bad faith is too well established for such a program to be accepted.
4. Laissez faire? Just let the states muddle their way through history for the next generation, trying to invent political institutions with which they don't have any experience. My opinion is that such a withdrawal of Western and US influence would eventually lead to new forms of autocracy, as the populaces accept autocratic rule by the military, or a party, or a person, as the only way to end civil war between hostile grounds and the only route to social peace.
5. Laissez faire, but with overt US guidance of development of local institutions conditional upon some local popular commitment to political democracy and freedom. (Okay, that doesn't seem like laissez faire, I admit.) It's difficult to believe that such a policy would be acceptable to most local people. See 3 and 4 above. But I think this is the only form of intervention could meet the test doing the least harm, while preserving our interests.
It will be enormously difficult to establish modern free and democratic states in the former Ottoman territories without generations of nurture of the institutions needed for individualism, freedom, toleration, and participatory political democracy. It took Britain and France hundreds of years and civil war to establish themselves as modern states. The US was the first new nation, but it required a horrible civil war to end the division based on slavery and create a united United States. It is difficult to believe that the Ottoman territories will escape such history.
As a cautionary tale, note four facts.
First, the strongest organization with universal values able to transcend local particularism in the Muslim world is the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is committed in principle to Islamist totalitarianism, and opposes freedom and democracy.
Second, the only functioning Arab political democracy and free society is Iraq. It required years of US intervention to protect and establish this new democracy. Our efforts to repeat this success in Afghanistan are still underway. There is no political will in the US to replicate this difficult task over and over again in separate Middle East states.
Three: oil. Petroleum remains the basis of industrialization around the world. Energy from oil will not be replaced by other sources of energy for a hundred years. The prosperity of Europe and China demands continued access to petroleum and natural gas. Absent such prosperity, European states and China would experience social upheaval which would not favor political freedom, but would encourage fascism in Europe and stronger Communist rule in China. We must protect Western sources of oil energy. You may be sure that China intends to protect its petrolem sources in the region, as it is building it's military for that capability. As a result, the US role as the guarantor of the world's interests in petrolem must persist, whether we like or note. The consequences of failure in this task are too dreadful to accept.
Four: Israel. As I have explained in previous articles, it is common for societies to seek political unity by unifying around perception of an internal or external enemy. It is likely that social chaos in the Islamic world will inflame anti-semitism and anti-Zionism. Israel will become more isolated. More efforts will be made by Muslim parties to generate war with Israel. We are committed to Israel's existence as a Jewish state. Somehow, we must remain involved in the Middle East to thwart the coming effort of anti-semites to undermine peace with Israel as a way of boosting their own political goals.
In conclusion: see number 5 above.
Recent Comments