gtownspur
07-08-2006, 10:55 PM
Democracy in the Middle East?
A response to President Bush's speech calling for the establishment of democracies in the region
By Abdullah Al Araby & Jim Croft
On November the 6th of 2003, President Bush addressed the members, guests, and press gathered for a meeting of the National Endowment for Democracy. His speech has been defined as his “vision for establishing democracies throughout the Middle East”. Unquestionably, it will be noted as one of the most important speeches of his presidency. He is a fine president and his speech reflected sincere convictions and admirable goals as he focused on what he interprets to be the major need of the Middle East.
Here are some excerpts from his address. “Freedom can be the future of every country.” “Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty.” “As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.”
His ideals have been applauded by those who remember the devastating 9/11/01 assault that nineteen Islamic terrorist perpetrated on America. These fully support the billions that are being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan as America’s finest put their lives in peril to protect our shores and to provide the oppressed of Muslim countries with opportunities for freedom. They rightly discern that his motivations are his concerns for the safety of the global community. The world is now like a small village wherein that which influences one nation affects all. Conversely, President Bush’s speech incited harsh skepticism from segments within the liberal Western press and the various news agencies of Arabic speaking nations. The Arabs complained that his administration manufactured reasons to wage war on Iraq and that that the USA’s foreign policies inevitably side unfairly with Israel against the Palestinians.
In its Friday 11/7/03 edition, a signed editorial in the leading Lebanese daily, An-Nahar described the speech as “very attractive words”. It also blasted, “before they become tangible policies that deal with the real problems, they will continue to be boring, empty rhetoric.” The Islamic Republic News Agency was even more critical as it quoted Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid-Reza Asefi. “No individual, or group, has ever commissioned Mr. Bush to safeguard their rights'. And basically, keeping in mind the dark record of the United States in suppressing the democratic movements around the globe, he is not in a position to talk about such issues.”
Curiously, it seems that the majority of Middle Eastern governments are hesitant to offer official reactions. Hopefully, they are waking up to the consensus of the political analysts. These remarked that Bush's plea would ring true with advocates of democracy who for decades have demanded an end to autocratic governments and corrupt politics of Middle East states.
One of the lines from the speech revealed that the president, his foreign-affairs advisors and speechwriters have yet to grasps the significant differences between the cultures and worldviews of those living in Islamic-controlled nations and those living in free democracies of the West. “It should be clear to all that Islam - the faith of one-fifth of humanity - is consistent with democratic rule.” He went on to add that democracy is progressing well in predominantly Muslim countries such as, “Turkey, Indonesia, Senegal, Albania, Niger and Sierra Leone”. There are a number of problems worth noting about these particular statements.
First, Arabic speaking people are not the predominant populations of any of the countries cited and none of those nations are located in the Middle East. Secondly, there is nothing within Islamic Law that is “consistent with democratic rule”. The president’s words had the comforting ring of sounding politically correct for those who insist that no Western diplomat dare ruffle Muslim sensitivities. Nonetheless, they are inaccurate depictions of the realities of Islamic-controlled nations. Without question, democracy is not the easiest form of government to establish. This is particularly true in situations where leaders are unaccustomed to opposition. Most do not want to trouble themselves with the necessity of using gentle powers of persuasion and voting ballots to get their policies approved by the citizens and their elected representatives. There are two primary factors that contribute to these realities, the nature of religion of Islam and the cultural tribalism/sheikdoms that exists in every nation of the Middle East.
Islam does not endorse democracy. To the contrary, it demands religious state governments in which politicians and clerics work hand-in-hand. Their sole purpose is to insure that every person residing in the country adheres to the dictates of Islam whether they are Muslims or not. This being said, within Muslim-controlled nations the major problem causing the disruptions of national peace is not America or other outside influences. It is the factions within Islam. The doctrinal differences between Sunnis and Shiites, and secular Muslims are volatile. These cause more bloodshed than any attempts to bring democracy ever have. The fact is these inner-Islam conflicts routinely incite Muslims to slaughter more Muslims annually than the total number of Muslim deaths inflicted by Coalition Forces in the Wars on Afghanistan and Iraq combined. In addition the Sharia Laws defy the democratic concepts of human rights, equal rights for women and the humane treatment of those charged with crimes. Women are flogged and stoned if it is alleged that they are guilty of adultery. They are beaten for not wearing head coverings or full-length burkas in public. Those charged as thieves have their hands amputated. Muslims who are charged with apostasy for converting to other religions are subject to governmental execution or imprisonment or being martyred by their own family members. Authorities have cultivated a blind-eye-policy toward the practice of slavery and violations of internationally accepted child-labor laws. The lists goes on and on in regard to Islam’s routine human rights infractions.
The Islamic principles that demand that clerics and government officials work hand-in-hand, are both complicated and intensified by the region’s history of authoritative sheikdoms. Even if Islam were not a factor, the cultural tribalism/sheikdoms would be. Westerner politicians simply do not comprehend the measure of competition, mistrust, and age-long animosities that exists between the various tribes, warlords, and sheiks within every nation of the Middle East. If a member of one tribe/clan was democratically elected, it is unlikely that the members of other tribes would either trust him or see the need to comply with his policies. When Islam is inserted into the mix, a western form of democracy has little chance of survival.
This is true because the people have religious and cultural philosophical predispositions for autocratic forms of government. Reminiscent of the sheiks and tribal warlords, ruthless men like Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Mubarak of Egypt, Gaddafi of Libya, the Imams of the Taliban and the Ayatollahs of Iran are free to set up tyrannical regimes. They call their governments by all sorts of democratic sounding names. However, their so- called democratic monarchies and Islamic republics bear no resemblances to true democracies. Even in Middle Eastern countries that boast parliamentary representation, the members are actually controlled by the whims of the heads of those particular administrations. Whether they call themselves presidents, kings or whatever, the name may vary, but the style of government remains the same. In many cases the voting process is mired with falsifications to guarantee the results of an election even before it begins. They rule by fear and any who oppose them are apt to find themselves subjected to imprisonment, torture and death. This is demonstrated by what happened to the Egyptian human rights activist, Saad Eddin Ibrahim. For merely attempting to voice public opposition to Egypt’s undemocratic practices, he spent almost two years in prison until he was acquitted by Egypt’s highest court.
The authoritarian governments of the Middle East also provide their rulers with a secure environment to establish ruling dynasties for successive generations of their families. It has already occurred in Syria. Mubarak of Egypt and Gaddafi of Libya are both grooming their sons to assume the presidencies of their respective nations. Hussein of Iraq would have done so, had the Coalition forces not deposed him.
There are two ancient sayings that may partially explain the causes for the factors that we have cited as the culprits in making Middle East Muslims resistant to democratic rule. The first is a prophetic utterance from the book of Genesis (Gen. 16:12). The Angel of the Lord told Hagar of her son, Ishmael (father of the Arabs), "He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers". This falls into line with the second, which is an Arabic proverb: "I against my brother; I and my brother against my cousin; I and my cousin against the stranger". It is our conviction that both are activated by the negative spiritual dynamics of Islam rather than a genetic curiosity resident in all Arabs. The Christian Arabs of America and the Middle East demonstrate no evidence of the prophecy’s and the proverb’s imprints on their lives. However, whenever Islam is embraced by any nationality, including Arabs, significant portions begin to demonstrate the predicted behaviors indicative of the ancient sayings.
There is no need for President Bush and our fellow Americans to be discouraged by the factors that we have brought to light. All concerned simply need to understand that the process will take patience. The indications are that it will likely take years before the general populations of those nations will have a philosophical base to desire democracy. The entire Islamic region needs generations of education, higher literacy rates, and opportunities to objectively compare the progress of Western nations to the lack of the same in Islamic states. Muslims must awaken to the realization that their methods that were acceptable fourteen centuries ago will need to undergo massive modifications if they are to be acceptable to the progressive societies of the twenty-first century. It is our ardent belief that above all, we should use every peaceful pressure to persuade them to grant their citizens freedom of religion. Christianity will imprint substantial segments of the populations with an innate understanding of freedom if it is given the opportunity to operate. More so than any other religion, it graces people with an understanding of the freedom that yearns for democracy.
A response to President Bush's speech calling for the establishment of democracies in the region
By Abdullah Al Araby & Jim Croft
On November the 6th of 2003, President Bush addressed the members, guests, and press gathered for a meeting of the National Endowment for Democracy. His speech has been defined as his “vision for establishing democracies throughout the Middle East”. Unquestionably, it will be noted as one of the most important speeches of his presidency. He is a fine president and his speech reflected sincere convictions and admirable goals as he focused on what he interprets to be the major need of the Middle East.
Here are some excerpts from his address. “Freedom can be the future of every country.” “Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty.” “As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.”
His ideals have been applauded by those who remember the devastating 9/11/01 assault that nineteen Islamic terrorist perpetrated on America. These fully support the billions that are being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan as America’s finest put their lives in peril to protect our shores and to provide the oppressed of Muslim countries with opportunities for freedom. They rightly discern that his motivations are his concerns for the safety of the global community. The world is now like a small village wherein that which influences one nation affects all. Conversely, President Bush’s speech incited harsh skepticism from segments within the liberal Western press and the various news agencies of Arabic speaking nations. The Arabs complained that his administration manufactured reasons to wage war on Iraq and that that the USA’s foreign policies inevitably side unfairly with Israel against the Palestinians.
In its Friday 11/7/03 edition, a signed editorial in the leading Lebanese daily, An-Nahar described the speech as “very attractive words”. It also blasted, “before they become tangible policies that deal with the real problems, they will continue to be boring, empty rhetoric.” The Islamic Republic News Agency was even more critical as it quoted Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid-Reza Asefi. “No individual, or group, has ever commissioned Mr. Bush to safeguard their rights'. And basically, keeping in mind the dark record of the United States in suppressing the democratic movements around the globe, he is not in a position to talk about such issues.”
Curiously, it seems that the majority of Middle Eastern governments are hesitant to offer official reactions. Hopefully, they are waking up to the consensus of the political analysts. These remarked that Bush's plea would ring true with advocates of democracy who for decades have demanded an end to autocratic governments and corrupt politics of Middle East states.
One of the lines from the speech revealed that the president, his foreign-affairs advisors and speechwriters have yet to grasps the significant differences between the cultures and worldviews of those living in Islamic-controlled nations and those living in free democracies of the West. “It should be clear to all that Islam - the faith of one-fifth of humanity - is consistent with democratic rule.” He went on to add that democracy is progressing well in predominantly Muslim countries such as, “Turkey, Indonesia, Senegal, Albania, Niger and Sierra Leone”. There are a number of problems worth noting about these particular statements.
First, Arabic speaking people are not the predominant populations of any of the countries cited and none of those nations are located in the Middle East. Secondly, there is nothing within Islamic Law that is “consistent with democratic rule”. The president’s words had the comforting ring of sounding politically correct for those who insist that no Western diplomat dare ruffle Muslim sensitivities. Nonetheless, they are inaccurate depictions of the realities of Islamic-controlled nations. Without question, democracy is not the easiest form of government to establish. This is particularly true in situations where leaders are unaccustomed to opposition. Most do not want to trouble themselves with the necessity of using gentle powers of persuasion and voting ballots to get their policies approved by the citizens and their elected representatives. There are two primary factors that contribute to these realities, the nature of religion of Islam and the cultural tribalism/sheikdoms that exists in every nation of the Middle East.
Islam does not endorse democracy. To the contrary, it demands religious state governments in which politicians and clerics work hand-in-hand. Their sole purpose is to insure that every person residing in the country adheres to the dictates of Islam whether they are Muslims or not. This being said, within Muslim-controlled nations the major problem causing the disruptions of national peace is not America or other outside influences. It is the factions within Islam. The doctrinal differences between Sunnis and Shiites, and secular Muslims are volatile. These cause more bloodshed than any attempts to bring democracy ever have. The fact is these inner-Islam conflicts routinely incite Muslims to slaughter more Muslims annually than the total number of Muslim deaths inflicted by Coalition Forces in the Wars on Afghanistan and Iraq combined. In addition the Sharia Laws defy the democratic concepts of human rights, equal rights for women and the humane treatment of those charged with crimes. Women are flogged and stoned if it is alleged that they are guilty of adultery. They are beaten for not wearing head coverings or full-length burkas in public. Those charged as thieves have their hands amputated. Muslims who are charged with apostasy for converting to other religions are subject to governmental execution or imprisonment or being martyred by their own family members. Authorities have cultivated a blind-eye-policy toward the practice of slavery and violations of internationally accepted child-labor laws. The lists goes on and on in regard to Islam’s routine human rights infractions.
The Islamic principles that demand that clerics and government officials work hand-in-hand, are both complicated and intensified by the region’s history of authoritative sheikdoms. Even if Islam were not a factor, the cultural tribalism/sheikdoms would be. Westerner politicians simply do not comprehend the measure of competition, mistrust, and age-long animosities that exists between the various tribes, warlords, and sheiks within every nation of the Middle East. If a member of one tribe/clan was democratically elected, it is unlikely that the members of other tribes would either trust him or see the need to comply with his policies. When Islam is inserted into the mix, a western form of democracy has little chance of survival.
This is true because the people have religious and cultural philosophical predispositions for autocratic forms of government. Reminiscent of the sheiks and tribal warlords, ruthless men like Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Mubarak of Egypt, Gaddafi of Libya, the Imams of the Taliban and the Ayatollahs of Iran are free to set up tyrannical regimes. They call their governments by all sorts of democratic sounding names. However, their so- called democratic monarchies and Islamic republics bear no resemblances to true democracies. Even in Middle Eastern countries that boast parliamentary representation, the members are actually controlled by the whims of the heads of those particular administrations. Whether they call themselves presidents, kings or whatever, the name may vary, but the style of government remains the same. In many cases the voting process is mired with falsifications to guarantee the results of an election even before it begins. They rule by fear and any who oppose them are apt to find themselves subjected to imprisonment, torture and death. This is demonstrated by what happened to the Egyptian human rights activist, Saad Eddin Ibrahim. For merely attempting to voice public opposition to Egypt’s undemocratic practices, he spent almost two years in prison until he was acquitted by Egypt’s highest court.
The authoritarian governments of the Middle East also provide their rulers with a secure environment to establish ruling dynasties for successive generations of their families. It has already occurred in Syria. Mubarak of Egypt and Gaddafi of Libya are both grooming their sons to assume the presidencies of their respective nations. Hussein of Iraq would have done so, had the Coalition forces not deposed him.
There are two ancient sayings that may partially explain the causes for the factors that we have cited as the culprits in making Middle East Muslims resistant to democratic rule. The first is a prophetic utterance from the book of Genesis (Gen. 16:12). The Angel of the Lord told Hagar of her son, Ishmael (father of the Arabs), "He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers". This falls into line with the second, which is an Arabic proverb: "I against my brother; I and my brother against my cousin; I and my cousin against the stranger". It is our conviction that both are activated by the negative spiritual dynamics of Islam rather than a genetic curiosity resident in all Arabs. The Christian Arabs of America and the Middle East demonstrate no evidence of the prophecy’s and the proverb’s imprints on their lives. However, whenever Islam is embraced by any nationality, including Arabs, significant portions begin to demonstrate the predicted behaviors indicative of the ancient sayings.
There is no need for President Bush and our fellow Americans to be discouraged by the factors that we have brought to light. All concerned simply need to understand that the process will take patience. The indications are that it will likely take years before the general populations of those nations will have a philosophical base to desire democracy. The entire Islamic region needs generations of education, higher literacy rates, and opportunities to objectively compare the progress of Western nations to the lack of the same in Islamic states. Muslims must awaken to the realization that their methods that were acceptable fourteen centuries ago will need to undergo massive modifications if they are to be acceptable to the progressive societies of the twenty-first century. It is our ardent belief that above all, we should use every peaceful pressure to persuade them to grant their citizens freedom of religion. Christianity will imprint substantial segments of the populations with an innate understanding of freedom if it is given the opportunity to operate. More so than any other religion, it graces people with an understanding of the freedom that yearns for democracy.