Community archive
The fledgling democracy in Iraq was set in motion by a massive invasion by Western countries.
How likely is that other Arabic nations will consider a peaceful transition to democracy?
by jdmercha
Within the next year - no way
Within the next 5 years - doubtful
Within the next 10 years - maybe
Within the next 25 years - probably
Most likely - Jordan, Iran or Saudi Arabia.
by admin
The US didn't create a fledgling democracy in Iraq- it has been an ongoing process.
Since it's inception in 1920 Iraq has always been unique in the Arab world as having a strong democratic element. The original elections then were not completely fair really and so in 1958 a coup and revolution for democracy of, for and by the people occured. There was a period of unprecidented freedom there and it was quite an exciting event. Unfortunately this all changed 5 years later when the Baath party took power, although arguably, the democratic leaders at the time brought it on themselves, gaining wealth and power and beginning to disregard the people who put them in power. Due to this attempt to stay in power, the people in charge didn't somehow get around to holding free elections during that time. Still, this was a remarkable time of social reform and at first, of vibrant flourishing Democracy.
You could say that the United States is trying to revive the democratic heart of Iraq perhaps, but Democracy has had a presence and history there for almost 100 years.
The Arab world has witnessed and remembered this process. It will take a long ongoing success in Iraq to convince them to look at Democracy as a long term stable system of government for their nations.
by protiusx
The middle east is full of a diverse range of peoples that span religious, ethnic, cultural and national boundaries. It is a common western falicy to lump them all together as "Arabs".
Case in point is my dear friend Aswad. We have known each other for years and he was born in Bangladesh and raised from a very young age in London. To look at him and to hear him speak he is a very smooth young Englishman who likes retro and raggae music and dresses in suites every where he goes.
He is a Sunni Muslim and has dated non-Muslim women before but has been forbade by his mother to marry a woman who was not Bangladeshee.
I haven't heard from Aswad in a while as he had taken ill for a time but I am sure he would be against this war. He has no love for the Shiite Muslim nor the Kurds. It is interesting to get his perspective on things though. Now if you were to ask Az how he would define himself he would say he was an Englishman or a citizen of the UK. He would say that he is a Sunni Muslim but he would be the first to tell you that (in his words) the Shiite are the militant faction.
I guess what I am trying to say here is that there are so many different factors to take into consideration when asking this kind of question. The biggest one from my view is that the people in this area of the world have never known democracy and change (especially of this magnitude) is very scary. With that said I think the average Iraqi regardless of family, tribe, ethnic or religious affiliation is feeling pretty good right now. They are doing something unique in that part of the world and I think they will see it through. I don't think the established governments of the surrounding countries will like it much but that is because the people of those countries will begin to ask themselves "if the Iraqi's can elect their government officials then why can't we?"
by pbaryl
"How likely is that other Arabic nations will consider a peaceful transition to democracy?" It's not likely at all. The only way it will happen is through a revolution, or an outside invasion. I don't believe that the people in power of the Arabic nations would let go of their power on their own to set up a democracy.
Can you give me an example of a country that has done it peacefully? I'm having hard time of coming up with one.
by admin
Israel is a Parliamentary democracy.
The U.N. set it up peacefully, although of course the conflicts came, not as most nations before, but afterwards.
by protiusx
by jardinier
It was set up by an external body, the UN (an organisation which is continually discredited at this website) on land belonging to the Palestinians.
It has been suggested (and I acknowledge this idea) that worldwide guilt over the holocaust was a big factor in allowing the State of Israel to be established.
by protiusx
by levannah44
A Palestinian is a person from the land of Palestine, the "old Philistia" or land of the Philistines, as the good book has it.
Palestine was generally defined as most of the area which now embraces Israel, Lebanon, parts of Syria and parts of Jordan.
When (mostly) French and English concerns carved up the middle east to their satisfaction over a century ago after the downfall of the Ottoman empire, the countries -- and boundaries -- created were all extremely artificial, having no regard for ethnic, religious or any other standard feature of the people already living there.
Syria and Jordan bear no resemblance to their more ancient counterparts, as is also the case with Lebanon, an entirely French construct in the new setup of mandates which arose out of the old Turkish Ottoman empire.
Farther afield in the general area of the middle east, Iraq and Iran are also artificial creations, both of them covering land that was once part of the old Persian empire, in the south and east, and Khurdistan in the north.
While democracy of sorts may have been attempted in some cases in the past, to a greater or lesser degree of success, democracy AS WE RECOGNISE IT IN THE WEST is not really what the countries of the middle east want.
I've emphasised our kind of democracy on purpose, because it's that kind that doesn't really meld well with the peculiar (to us) life-style most Arabs want these days.
The recent (two or three decades) rise of fundamentalist Islam across the entire Islamic world, but most especially in the middle east, is really pointing to what the vast majority of Muslims really want, except the west is, in general, far too blind to see it, or at least see beyond their own interests -- oil -- to be aware of anything else.
I won't go into the twisted versions of Islam some of these fundamentalist Muslims have practiced in recent times, as they've been discussed quite fully in other discussions about the subject on this site.
The Taliban (the first to follow this "new" practice) and those who have come after them do NOT really "want" the kind of Islam they purport to follow. This is simply a way of showing the west how far they are prepared to go to achieve what they are really after -- a Muslim world, run on strictly shari'a lines re-interpreted to a twentieth century perspective, if not a twenty-first century one, yet harking back to the days of the Prophet and "pure" Islam.
Call it an Islamic utopia if you like, but it is what most Muslims yearn for. Of course, we all know "utopias" are often just a dream, and in all likelihood, so will the Muslim one turn out to be. Nevertheless, they'll strive for it, and maybe they'll come close to what they want, provided, of course, the west butts out and stays out, and stops trying to shape the Muslim world in their own mold.
Having said all that, I'd like to add here that Israel is just about the worst example that could be chosen as the way of the future for the rest of the middle east. Heaven help us!!
Contrary to what most people believe, Israel is not a "democracy". It looks like one, and sometimes even behaves like one, but a democracy in the western sense of the understanding it is NOT!
Like the surrounding Arabs -- and Muslims -- what Israel actually has, and always wanted, is a state run along the lines of the laws set down in the Torah and otherwhere in Jewish literature. In short, it's a "religious" democracy, if you like.
Most Israelis are what could be called "secular"; maybe upwards of eighty or 90%. And yet, for all that, they are strictly governed by religious law!
There are two major parties in the Israeli Knesset, which numbers 120 members, the old Biblical greatest age (for people like Moses, etc.). They are the Likud (conservative) and Labour parties. The latter is a little more accommodating towards modernity than the Likud party.
However, neither party, to my knowledge -- and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong -- has enough members (61) to dominate the Knesset in its own right. This always results in co-alition governments of one kind or another; the "winning" party making up government by bringing on line one of the many smaller parties in the Knesset.
While on one or two occasions this system has actually resulted in the two major parties forming a "one party" co-alition, it most generally means an agreement with the next largest party, Shas.
Now Shas happens to be an ultra-conservative, Jews-only-and-religion-first party of the far, far right. And of course, whatever either of the two major parties may want to do, their partner, Shas, has to agree to, resulting (usually) in no advances towards talks with the Palestinians, absolutely NO give on the matter of Jerusalem, and a rapid expansion of settlements across Palestinian territory (for example).
For a good many years of modern Israel's short history, the state has actually been "governed" by the Shas party, hence the "religious" democracy tag used before.
However, the version of "religious" as understood by Shas bears absolutely no resemblance to anything the majority of Israelis would want to tag by that term.
Most of them, by definition, are secular, wanting no part of either what Shas offers (a middle-European, 19th century-style Biblical Judaism that got stuck in the middle ages!) or, indeed, the more "reformist" kind of the struggling progressive community, trying to gain a foothold in the shadow of Shas.
Most Israelis would like to see a complete separation of church and state and have a purely political -- and democratic -- set-up, a la the west.
Did you know, for instance, that no marriage in Israel can be recognised as legal unless conducted in the orthodox (Shas) manner? Again, a convert to Judaism is not recognised by Shas unless the conversion has been carried out in the orthodox manner.
And for a convert to be married to an Israeli (Jew) -- secular, remember -- is totally impossible under Israeli law as it stands. Such marriages take place in Cyprus, or other close, neutral places.
A widow whose husband dies and there are no witnesses to the death, or the body is "lost", as in a war situation -- being taken prisoner, etc. -- must wait seven years before she can be remarried, since her husband was unable to give her the traditional "gett", or religious divorce.
And no woman can be remarried without a gett from her ex-husband, no matter how easy divorce is in other western countries these days.
And have you ever noticed that none of the young ultra-orthodox men, studying at Yeshivot (religious univerties, where only Biblical and other religious literature is studied), never get called into army service, although this is otherwise compulsory for every 18 year old (male and female) in the country?
The ultra-orthodox are EXEMPT from military service (by order of Shas) as their religious studies are considered more important than defending the country!!
Finally, of course, there is the strict segregation of men and women, particularly in holy places, such as the Khotel (Western Wall). And you thought Israel was a democracy!!
I could give many more examples of situations like this, which flourish only under strict Biblical law, but I won't, of course. There's far too many of them.
If you don't believe me, get hold of the Israeli constitution, or a Bible, and check what I've told you. It's all only too true.
Change comes very slowly, and while change is certainly afoot in Israel, for the better, it's hoped, it will be a long, long time before the influence of parties (and other ultra-orthodox groups) such as Shas to fade from Israel's memory.
The entire constitution will need to be changed and things like that can take forever. Especially when it's Jews doing the changing -- with a government of 120, there will undoubtedly be at least 121 different opinions on what must be done, and probably many more!
I rest my case.
Levannah
(a proud Diaspora and very progressive Jew who pays lip service to Israel and believes strongly in the Palestinian cause)
by admin
And just like a Parlimentary Democracy is a blend- an so is a Democratic Republic.
A Democracy is still what we, and they, hold themselves out to the world as, whether or not it is really a Democracy in either case.
by admin
I know that you are not alone, and that many Israeli's and Jew's share the view's of wanting reform in the Israeli government and also being sympathetic to the Palestinian situation.
I do not see them posting much in primarily American, or Western forums however.
I sincerely commend you on posting this here and know that although it is painfully slow in process, that the Jewish people can and will get things straightened out in the State of Israel.
I am also glad you Diaspora are amoung us and throughout the world keeping our incredibly odd ideas about Jews and the State of Israel in check. :)
"Live Long and Prosper!"- and Thank You for the insight here. :)
by levannah44
Oh, I quite agree, admin, except maybe it's about time we put the world right and told them the truth, that's all.
Levannah
by admin
"When is a Democracy Not a Democracy?"
When we collectively decide on a definition we can Democratically embrace in our disparate groups, or even between them- then we can demonstrate what it is not as well.
Unfortunately, most of the world does thrive on quick & easy popular definitions that sell things quickly and can be eaten more as supplements than meals. I am not trying to change that really, but accepting more of a honey eating voice out in the wilderness for my views. Whether or not the Democratic process thinks my view is important is irrelevant to me personally.
Amazingly, during my lapses here at TR, what often inspires me to frequent here again is mail from people who would like to see me comment on a thing or generally appreciate some particular view. This always astounds me as a lot of times it may be on a post that I don't even get a response on here. ~LoL~
Hopefully my ranting at this point has lost the average TR reader by now ~LoL~
IMO, most people seem to collectively agree that whatever they grew up with is the best and should be defended at all cost. Travel during youth is a wonderfully enriching experience and personally I enjoyed the advice of Kurt Vonnegut after his experiences being one of the Americans Fire Bombed indescriminately in Dresden. The fire bombing wasn't the most effective long term tool at creating the change we wanted to see, and so it occured to him that perhaps the best way to approach relations with other countries would be to supply your military youth with training in the language and customs of the country you were at war with and then parachute them in en masse and allow them to meet and interbreed willingly with the inhabitants, set up house there and then provide military travel for them and the parents to go back and forth to see the grandkids.
Perhaps with such a program after a few years we could agree on what Democratic mix would be most acceptably termed correct as Democracy. :)
It is clear, however, that under current levels of acceptability, no one wants a pure Democracy. Oddly enough, if most people understood the terms they were bantying about, perhaps the most un-Democratic government would in fact be the purest form of Democracy. Alas, but then perhaps the new reality show: "Off With Their Heads" may be in fact widely popular both in the popular and subsequent electorate vote at some point.... Argh! :)
by levannah44
Thank-you, admin, for your kind words. Almost even as I write this, Sharon and the new Palestinian President have just shaken hands on a new approach to a "peace" deal.
While the vast majority of both Israelis and Palestinians -- the "ordinary guy in the street" -- want peace with one another, it's not a foregone conclusion, even now.
Of course the entire world wanted to see that handshake, but it's a helluva long way from a handshake to a truly lasting and workable peace.
After all, handshakes have happened before, and where are we now as a result? Still kneedeep in blood and acrimony.
While the Palestinians have lived in "the Land" for over two thousand years, they haven't necessarily always owned it. Up until about a century ago, the Turks owned it (the Ottoman empire), so the "Palestinians" can't really be said to have owned the land in their own right until after the end of the Ottoman empire.
Before that, it was the sheiks and caliphs of the vast Islamic empire who owned the land, going back through the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Persians, Babylonians, Mesopotamians and Sumerians.
By the same token, while there have always been Jews living in the area, for at least as long as the "Palestinians", including after the Diaspora in the year 70CE, these same Jews were also subject to the identical foreign powers that ruled over this choice piece of land from afar, only for two or three brief periods during this time actually owning the land themselves.
So where does that leave this terrible bloodshed, this squabble over the "centre" of the world between two peoples both claiming the right to be there?
If we are to believe what's written in the Bible, these same two peoples are supposed to be, at the worst, cousins, at the best, step-brothers, with a common father in the patriarch, Abraham (which means "father of all nations". Hm).
The Qu'ran voices similar genealogies, except it's Ishmael who is the attempted sacrifice on Mt Moriah in the Qu'ran, while it's Isaac in the Bible.
Which brings me to another point. Mt Moriah, the mountain where Abraham was so tested by God that he was asked to sacrifice his "only" son, is, by legend, the very same as "The Dome of the Rock"!
Of course, we all know the importance of the Dome of the Rock to the Muslims (Arabs); it was from here, so legend has it, that Mohammed ascended to heaven.
And it has equal, maybe greater, relevance to the Jews as the place where Isaac (or Ishmael) was prepared for sacrifice to a God who demanded absolute obedience from his servants.
In addition, it is also the selfsame place where once the Temple of Solomon stood, both first and second temples, before finally being destroyed in the year 70CE, the year the great Diaspora began.
The claim to this most sacred place, by both sides, however, is only heresay and legend. The Bible cannot be relied on to speak the truth, since so much of the writing going on at this time -- the books which eventually became part of the NT -- were highly propagandist for the new religion then emerging, Christianity.
As for the Arabic claim, it was also highly suspicious, if not because the Qu'ran was propagandist, certainly because to be associated with this ancient sacred spot meant an instant acceptance of a new religion.
This time it was Islam, not Christianity, which was the "new" religion, and while the Qu'ran came over six centuries after most of the books of the NT, it was no less significant and acceptable simply because of its association with this sacred place.
The "wall", by the way, is NOT part of the remains of Solomon's or any other Temple, a belief commonly held by many people. It is one side of the huge foundation platform on which the Temple stood, all traces of the Temple having been obliterated by the Romans in the year 70CE.
So how is this age-old conflict to be resolved? With only legend and hearsay as support for both sides, it seems that neither Jew nor Arab have terribly much say in the matter.
After the fall of the Ottoman empire, the Palestinians began to buy land and establish farming practices in the area in their own right.
And from the time of Herzl onward, who looked to a future for "his" people in the Holy Land, when the Diaspora would end and all who were scattered in 70CE would return in triumph to the land of their forefathers (or their descendants would, at any rate!) and there become a nation once again, the buying up peacefully of the "Land" from their Palestinian neighbours was the only way such a Nation would be achieved. War didn't even come into it.
But this was a POLITICAL idea, not a religious one, and the first returning Jews were not prompted by what the Bible said, but by what Herzl said. Which was why they didn't just walk in and take the land. They bought it openly and officially from their Arab/Palestinian neighbours, with whom they proceeded to live mostly in harmony.
What went wrong? What went wrong was Hitler and WWII, the death camps and the so-called "guilt" of the world over what had gone on in Auschwitz and other places like it.
Instead of a continued return of Jews from across the globe, slowly buying up land from their Palestinian neighbours, the existence of papers such as the Balfour Declaration and the fact of the Mandate all combined to turn this gentle immigration into a wild stampede before the British left for good and returned home.
Everything went extremely wrong after that. From the shambles of a world conflict and an area artificially divided by oil-hungry "rich" western nations, a small state was created on the basis of a promise in the Balfour Declaration and the perceived guilt of the world over the holocaust.
Subsequent wars evicted peaceful Palestinians wholesale, away from the land they had lived in for over two thousand years.
And the "children of Israel", the first generation after those war-scarred victims of Hitler's horror, believing that the land was their god-given right through the auspices of the Balfour Declaration, to say nothing of the Bible, fought to hold on to what was theirs, by right or might as needs be.
From timid and downtrodden refugees, they became strong and powerful in this new land, dominating the former inhabitants, slaughtering them as necessary, almost a grim parallel to the story of the Exodus and that other conquering of Canaan now almost four thousand years in the past.
There should have been peace between these two "brothers". There will be peace -- eventually -- but it will be a long, long time coming.
Anyone who thinks a handshake today will lead to that miraculous peace tomorrow is simply deluding themselves. Tomorrow is still a long way off. It could be ten, twenty, even fifty years from now before this terrible and so unnecessary conflict is resolved.
Why? Because it must come from a generation yet unborn, one that has not known bloodshed and hate. It cannot come from a handshake where both hands are still so steeped in blood.
Again, I rest my case.
Levannah
.
...that they will, than that they won't.
In my opinion, democracy being spread throughout the middle-east is inevitable. It's only a question of how long will it take and by what means.
.
.....that they will, than that they won't.
In my opinion, democracy being spread throughout the middle-east is inevitable. It's only a question of how long and by what means.
by av .
I think the removal of the Taliban was the first step towards democracy in the Middle East. Then Iraq was invaded. Death and destruction, death and destruction.
Ultimately, it gave hope to people of every country in the Middle East. To the leaders of those countries, it gave a choice they have to make. They can do it the easy way, or the hard way.
I think all of them have to transition to democracy or there will be fierce opposition. It will probably come from their own people as opposed to the US or any other militia.
Freedom really is on the march, as GWB puts it, and you all know I'm not a Bushie. Time will tell.
This discussion is closed to new replies.
Sort by Trending