This semester I took Middle East Political Systems. My professor Amr Al-Azm is Lebanan-raised of a Syrian father and Palestinian mother. Needless to say, he has some serious bias going 
on. But I was open-minded through the course and learned so much, even if it did come from his anthropological, anti-Israel, anti-Bush administration point of view. We had weekly assignments that weren't that interesting, so I didn't post them. I now feel competent enough to write commentaries about happenings in the Middle East and will do so in the future. (Iran's having an election this summer, expect something). As for now, I'll post my final.
The consistent instability of non-democratic, Islamist Middle East nations gives the appearance that perhaps Islam is incompatible with democracy. Because of this, many believe Islam to be the main deterrent to progress and stability in the Arab world. I believe, however, there is evidence to support the opposite. In this paper I give three examples of stable leaders of the Middle East—Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey—as examples of stability in the region, proposing an alternant view of democracy, progress and Islam.
The first model of a stable Middle Eastern country I have chosen is Iran. Iran has been a major player on the world stage since the Islamic revolution of 1979. By dethroning the Shah, however, Iran took the role of antagonist against the country that would become the post-Cold War hegemon, the United States. Recently American anxiety toward Iran resurfaced in the Bush administration’s inclusion of Iran in the modern Axis of Evil. Iran’s persistent drive toward nuclear proliferation is evidence of its desire not to crush all enemies of Islam, but rather to gain the respect it deserves as a major world power and to deter the thoughts of other country’s who may think otherwise and try to undermine the state. Iran holds a wealth of oil beneath its crust, and influence in a number of other Middle East nations, including Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon.
There is no question of Iran’s stability, or of its deep Islamic influence, as the country follows sharia law, and entrusts its executive powers to the faqih, or supreme leader, a Shiite cleric with expertise in Islamic law. Because so much power is given to the supreme leader, foreign nations give little legitimacy to the elected Iranian president and parliament. There is an overwhelming opinion in the modern world that there must be some sort democratic input involving elections and policy, and a supreme leader frustrates this image. On the other hand, the people of Iran voiced an opinion in 1979 that has given them the type of government that they have today. Sharia law as interpreted by a Shiite cleric clearly is not too problematic with a population that is 89% Shiite Muslim.
If democracy is determined by fair and balanced elections and fair process of law by those who are elected, Iran has been weighed and measured and is found lacking. If democracy is to be determined as a government doing what its people want it to, Iran is in the running. For example, current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his anti-U.S. rhetoric have filled media airwaves painting an awful picture, not of Ahmadinejad the president, but of Iran the country, in the minds of foreigners. Iranian discomfort with this misrepresentation will be seen in this summer’s elections, as Ahmadinejad will likely lose the election to a more conservative candidate.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia presents us with another example of a legitimate Middle East power. Unlike Iran, however, Saudi Arabia provides no cover for its undemocratic government. The Saud dynasty traces its roots back to the eighteenth century, and continues today in the hands of Kind Abdallah, who reigns in absolute monarchical power over his kingdom. The absence of democratic government institutions in Saudi Arabia, however, has not hindered its progress.
It is currently in the top quarter of the world in per capita GDP and holds a literacy rate that is probably higher than the United States’ real rate. But is their progress slighted by a high security, low freedom government? Saudi Arabia’s most powerful ally, the United States, has not indicated to their friend King Saud that authoritarian dictators like him who restrict the freedom of his people have no right to exist in this world, nor that we will include his kingdom in our next ‘Axis of Evil’ list and invade Saudi Arabia to free the Islamic people of their repression. Surely Saudi Arabia’s assistance in the Global War on Terror is a factor here, but in any other case the United States usually isn’t slow to call out monarchies that limit human rights and bar basic freedoms. It would seem that a country lacking in democracy is perfectly able to gain international acceptance and progress economically when counterterrorism efforts and crude oil are found.
In conclusion I present Turkey, a fully-democratic, stable nation in the Middle East. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey failed to establish a stable system of government until the 1980s, but since has seen a sound economy and stable government processes. It currently eyes membership in the European Union, trying to break the wealthy white European mould filled by other members. Clearly, acceptance into the European Union would solidify claims of being a stable regional power.
The ‘anomaly’ people find in Turkey is that the stable and democratic government exists in a country where 98% of the population practice Islam. Turkey is proof that Muslims can exist together in a society where the government is neither authoritarian nor determined by sharia law. Many accept Turkey’s success as proof that democracy is the only way in which a predominantly Muslim country can obtain stability, and would propose such secular forms of government (like the ones in which the accusers likely live) to other Middle East countries whose country’s future seems to be in flux. The examples of Iran and Saudi Arabia, however, cause reason to believe that perhaps different strokes really do work for different folks. There is not one form of government that is ultimately better than all others, an assumption made by those who claim that progress and stability cannot be attained without democracy. Progress and stability have taken place in the predominantly Muslim countries Iran and Saudi Arabia without the presence of a fully functional democracy, and such progress is possible for other nations in the region as well.
on. But I was open-minded through the course and learned so much, even if it did come from his anthropological, anti-Israel, anti-Bush administration point of view. We had weekly assignments that weren't that interesting, so I didn't post them. I now feel competent enough to write commentaries about happenings in the Middle East and will do so in the future. (Iran's having an election this summer, expect something). As for now, I'll post my final.Now, I spent two and a half hours building my argument as I went without proofreading anything, but I'm putting it up anyways. He must have liked it, I got full credit for it, but I wasn't trying to write what he wanted to hear. In fact, we didn't even talk about Saudi Arabia or Turkey in the class, I just did the assigned readings. I am actually very passionate about this subject. In Star Trek they call it the Prime Directive: "No Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture." The Prime Directive is General Order #1 and the guiding principle of Starfleet. Maybe we could learn something from Star Trek.
The consistent instability of non-democratic, Islamist Middle East nations gives the appearance that perhaps Islam is incompatible with democracy. Because of this, many believe Islam to be the main deterrent to progress and stability in the Arab world. I believe, however, there is evidence to support the opposite. In this paper I give three examples of stable leaders of the Middle East—Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey—as examples of stability in the region, proposing an alternant view of democracy, progress and Islam.
The first model of a stable Middle Eastern country I have chosen is Iran. Iran has been a major player on the world stage since the Islamic revolution of 1979. By dethroning the Shah, however, Iran took the role of antagonist against the country that would become the post-Cold War hegemon, the United States. Recently American anxiety toward Iran resurfaced in the Bush administration’s inclusion of Iran in the modern Axis of Evil. Iran’s persistent drive toward nuclear proliferation is evidence of its desire not to crush all enemies of Islam, but rather to gain the respect it deserves as a major world power and to deter the thoughts of other country’s who may think otherwise and try to undermine the state. Iran holds a wealth of oil beneath its crust, and influence in a number of other Middle East nations, including Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon.
There is no question of Iran’s stability, or of its deep Islamic influence, as the country follows sharia law, and entrusts its executive powers to the faqih, or supreme leader, a Shiite cleric with expertise in Islamic law. Because so much power is given to the supreme leader, foreign nations give little legitimacy to the elected Iranian president and parliament. There is an overwhelming opinion in the modern world that there must be some sort democratic input involving elections and policy, and a supreme leader frustrates this image. On the other hand, the people of Iran voiced an opinion in 1979 that has given them the type of government that they have today. Sharia law as interpreted by a Shiite cleric clearly is not too problematic with a population that is 89% Shiite Muslim.
If democracy is determined by fair and balanced elections and fair process of law by those who are elected, Iran has been weighed and measured and is found lacking. If democracy is to be determined as a government doing what its people want it to, Iran is in the running. For example, current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his anti-U.S. rhetoric have filled media airwaves painting an awful picture, not of Ahmadinejad the president, but of Iran the country, in the minds of foreigners. Iranian discomfort with this misrepresentation will be seen in this summer’s elections, as Ahmadinejad will likely lose the election to a more conservative candidate.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia presents us with another example of a legitimate Middle East power. Unlike Iran, however, Saudi Arabia provides no cover for its undemocratic government. The Saud dynasty traces its roots back to the eighteenth century, and continues today in the hands of Kind Abdallah, who reigns in absolute monarchical power over his kingdom. The absence of democratic government institutions in Saudi Arabia, however, has not hindered its progress.It is currently in the top quarter of the world in per capita GDP and holds a literacy rate that is probably higher than the United States’ real rate. But is their progress slighted by a high security, low freedom government? Saudi Arabia’s most powerful ally, the United States, has not indicated to their friend King Saud that authoritarian dictators like him who restrict the freedom of his people have no right to exist in this world, nor that we will include his kingdom in our next ‘Axis of Evil’ list and invade Saudi Arabia to free the Islamic people of their repression. Surely Saudi Arabia’s assistance in the Global War on Terror is a factor here, but in any other case the United States usually isn’t slow to call out monarchies that limit human rights and bar basic freedoms. It would seem that a country lacking in democracy is perfectly able to gain international acceptance and progress economically when counterterrorism efforts and crude oil are found.
In conclusion I present Turkey, a fully-democratic, stable nation in the Middle East. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey failed to establish a stable system of government until the 1980s, but since has seen a sound economy and stable government processes. It currently eyes membership in the European Union, trying to break the wealthy white European mould filled by other members. Clearly, acceptance into the European Union would solidify claims of being a stable regional power.
The ‘anomaly’ people find in Turkey is that the stable and democratic government exists in a country where 98% of the population practice Islam. Turkey is proof that Muslims can exist together in a society where the government is neither authoritarian nor determined by sharia law. Many accept Turkey’s success as proof that democracy is the only way in which a predominantly Muslim country can obtain stability, and would propose such secular forms of government (like the ones in which the accusers likely live) to other Middle East countries whose country’s future seems to be in flux. The examples of Iran and Saudi Arabia, however, cause reason to believe that perhaps different strokes really do work for different folks. There is not one form of government that is ultimately better than all others, an assumption made by those who claim that progress and stability cannot be attained without democracy. Progress and stability have taken place in the predominantly Muslim countries Iran and Saudi Arabia without the presence of a fully functional democracy, and such progress is possible for other nations in the region as well.
2 comments:
Well golly-gee-wiz, let's all move to Saudi Arabia! Well put Keith.
Actually, by no means do I suggest anyone move to Saudi Arabia (unless you can weld). They have their own thing and we have our own thing, and we should leave it at that.
Post a Comment