First Stirrings of Democracy in the Middle East

[M]

[snip]

Well, Frodo, your honesty and openness is extremely refreshing, and gives me hope that people of different political beliefs will continue to be able to work together for common good. When my pacifist friends explain to me that they just can never support war and violence, I tell them that peace comes from democracy, since democracy do not go to war with one another and are historically very stable. It is also dictatorships which engage inm genocide, I tell the "Stop Darfur"ians. I think we all have the same goals here, but with these monsters who value no human life, like Hitler or Saddam, those who are willing to countenance the worst are more effective because we can talk to these hugs in their own language. Hence, the successes of Churchill, Reagan, and W Bush.

It would be a mistake to take Bush for a conjurer of cheap tricks, Frodo. Why don't you check out Bush's inaugural address again with an open mind and tell me if he isn't really talking about certain basic ideals that we all agree on and, I think, wish for the entire world.

[M]

What about the possibility that the response to September 11th that Osama provoked out of Bush will lead to the recruitment of a generation of democrats?

Nuclear proliferation has been stomped on thoroughly, though, and while still probably the world's single biggest problem, is surely much less one than four years ago. Iraq is out of the picture entirely, the Libyans have turned over their stockpile, the A.Q. Khan network is in disarray, and the Russians are getting serious about it and working more closely with us. The major problem remains the Iranian and N. Korean programs, as you point out; if invasion were necessary it would be possible, despite our involvement elsewhere. However, I have come to believe that direct military intervention may not be necessary; rather we must keep up support for the real Iranian democrats and put convince China to open the floodgates for refugees from Pyongyang.

But wait and see (like wither of us have a choice...). I think good things will start to happen- in Israel-Arab peace, continued liberalisation in the Middle East, and the toppling or de-rogue-ation (i.e., Qaddafization) of rogue regimes. I believe this is a year, like 1848 and 1989, that history will long remember.

Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven!
-William Wordsworth

[M]

The idea that we are introducing "democracy" to the Lebanese for the first time is absurd. The country has experienced some form of parliamentary rule since independence and the Pact of 1943, when the six-to-five apportionment of seats to Christians and Muslims was institutionalized, and Lebanon's "confessional" system kept the various factions from one another's throats.

But democracy failed in Lebanon as the Muslim population skyrocketed and the Christians declined: too much "democracy" could have foisted an Islamic state on the land of the Phoenicians, and the Christians resisted a re-divvying up of the electoral spoils to reflect the new demographics. The result was a long and bloody civil war, an invasion by Israel, and the invitation to Syria to step in and maintain some semblance of order. This invitation, one might add, was extended by many of the same people who are now raising such a stink about the Syrian "occupiers."

In a Western-style winner-take-all election, the Shi'ite majority would triumph, roughly along the same lines as in Iraq: however, when it comes to "democracy," Lebanese-style, it is quite a different story. The complex mosaic of Lebanon's religious and tribal diversity translates into a Byzantine system of assigned seats reserved for certain groups. A single electoral district in, say, Beirut, is granted six representatives: two Sunnis, one Shi'ite, one Greek Orthodox, one Armenian Orthodox, and one "Christian minority" MP. It is a system that combines affirmative action with the worst aspects of the party primary system in the U.S., and one that lends itself easily to manipulation. The terms of this confessional apportionment are among the most hotly contested issues in Lebanese politics, and it is hard to see how more "democracy," rather than less, is going to improve anyone's life.

All sadly true. But we do know that at the least, an independent Lebanon would not harbor terrorism and promote drug running or be usable as a politically expedient way for Syria to attack it's Southern neighbor; nor would it serve as a prop to the fascist "Baby Doc" NixonNow regime in Syria. And In a best case scenario, a revived Lebanese democracy (quite imperfect, but glorious by Arab standards) could create a Europe-leaning preo-Western state and promote free ideal across Araby.

Here's what I would do for Lebanon:

1-Create an independent Palestinean state so the Palestineans can go there.
2-Kick the rest of the Muslims out, well maybe only the Shia. If they love Syria so much, they can take their terrorist anti-Semetic asses there.
3-Arrest anyone who connections to the fascist Falange party that butchered lots of children in Palestinean refugee camps. So far only one prominent leader has been arrested and tried, although a few have been assasinated, including the very deserving Elie Hobeika.
4-Outlaw the Falange and Hezbollah for good.

Then hopefully the Israelis will finally vote the war criminal Sharon out of power.

All fun! But altering borders today is generally frowned upon, since you might be opening Pandora's box. Only in really exceptional cases like Palestine, Montenegro, Kashmir, Western Sahara and Korea is it really even conceivable.

Falange, btw, no longer exists as a military force. At one time there were far more than two, today there is only one independent militia left, and that is Hezbollah.

[M]

Since your username actually IS an ideology which has historically murdered, tortured, and oppressed those who have opposed it EVERY TIME it has held power in a nation, you likely would not understand democracy. Just in case, though, I urge you to reread the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and tell me why the universal ideals of life, liberty, and property should be denied to the poor little brown people of the Near East.

[M]

Ah, because every future election held in an Islamic country will inevitable end up like Algeria's did a couple decades ago.  There's no other option.  In fact, the argumentative strategy of taking a single failure of a system and applying it universally is logically flawless.  It's not like other, non-Islamic countries which have rapid transitions to democracy ever experience nationalist or ethnic turbulence.  All you need to do is ignore Japan, Germany, Serbia, and all the other cases of quick democratic transitions failing (a huge percentage of them do) and the argument is very sound indeed.

Furthermore, the four countries with the largest Islamic populations have all held successful elections and have elected women as executives.

In a Western-style winner-take-all election, the Shi'ite majority would triumph, roughly along the same lines as in Iraq.

Those 4 countries do not have splitting occuring along Sunni-Shiite religous lines because they are relatively homogenous in terms of sect and India definitely shouldn't count as a Muslim country despite it having the 2nd largest population of Muslims. On top of that Indira Gandhi was a disaster for India. Benazr Bhutto was a disaster for Pakistan. Mrs Bandaranike was a disaster for Sri Lanka. Megawati is proving weak and ineffective (to put it at its most kindly) in Indonesia and is looking set fair to be a disaster.

However, when it comes to "democracy," Lebanese-style, it is quite a different story. The complex mosaic of Lebanon's religious and tribal diversity translates into a Byzantine system of assigned seats reserved for certain groups.

A single electoral district in, say, Beirut, is granted six representatives: two Sunnis, one Shi'ite, one Greek Orthodox, one Armenian Orthodox, and one "Christian minority" MP.

It is a system that combines affirmative action with the worst aspects of the party primary system in the U.S., and one that lends itself easily to manipulation.

The terms of this confessional apportionment are among the most hotly contested issues in Lebanese politics, and it is hard to see how more "democracy," rather than less, is going to improve anyone's life.

I assume you are aware that this is something you posted on the last page. But, if you want further deconstruction:

Western Style? You mean American style, because very few other countries do it our way. In a European style parliament, the Lebanese Shi'a would have a plurality, not a majority, and would have no choice but to seek out allies.

Megawati is no longer president. Indira Gandhi was not Muslim. And regardless, the ineffectiveness of a woman leader does not challenge the existence of a woman leader.

Yes, the creed based political system has never been a god idea, is currently used for Baathist ends, and needs reform desperately. And yes, it is unfortunate that politics should be based on cultural communities and not ideas, but seriously, that happens everywhere! Even the United States, one political view even suggests that Democrats are a party of special interests(minorities, unions, intellectual movements, etc), and Republicans of everybody else. Whether or not this is correct, it is clear that you do have particular communities more likely to vote certain ways. (Spot the Republican and Democrat here- white, Mississippi, Southern Baptist, middle class doctor and black, Muslim, Harlem, very poor, lives off welfare system). Yes, the Lebanese (and Iraqis) do take it to a different level, but one does have to start somewhere.

As you claim commitment to an ideology that has slaughtered its opponents en masse EVERY TIME it has held power historically, it is hard to see how you would understand how democracies are good for everyone. But, briefly:

Democracies do not go to war with one another.

True democracy, especially after a successful period of establishment and the development of a middle class, is the most stable system of government.

Democracies do not support terrorist groups.

Democracies do not engage in genocide against their own citizens.

Democracies historically serve as very positive incentive to political change for non-democracies, especially nearby ones or ones with cultural/historical links.

Democracies are far more likely to support free trade, regional cooperation, and other agents of globalization.

The obvious one- democracies do not line people up against the wall and blow their heads off, Che Guevara style.

Democracies promote wealth- 91% of the world's GDP is in the "Free" countries.

Democracies end hunger- there has never been a debilitating famine in a truly free nation, comparing famines in India and China during the Cold War is especially revealing.

Democracies fight disease and drugs more effectively- MDR TB, AIDS and malaria might be gone today in a democracy free world, and certainly it is noticeable that Myanmar, Lebanon, and rebel controlled parts of Colombia produce drugs, while Mexico, Turkey, Afghanistan and Colombia fight them.

So yes, democracies do make life better for many people. Not that you would understand, being a member of a fiercely anti-democratic ideology which has never held power with slaughtering and destroying all oppostion in the name of the cause, and which brands every opposing viewpoint as counterrevolutionary and backward, ensuring decades of political bondage and, in effect, turning communism into the EXACT SAME SYSTEM as the absolutist monarchism the movement arose to combat. And no, your communism is not different, it will not produce a worldwide kibbutz of love and happiness.

[M]

Democracies are far more likely to support free trade, regional cooperation, and other agents of globalization.

that's not a good thing.

The rest applies to democracies for the most part but not ones in Muslim countries. The best thing for a Muslim country is a secular dictatorship.

Why not? Be honest here- might you not, 70 years ago, have said the same about Germans or Japanese; forty years ago about Catholics, twenty years ago aout Slavs? Why are the Muslims exceptional?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wasn't Hitler democratically elected as well? As was Ariel Sharon for that matter, and so was Bush.

Hitler, yes, sadly. Democracies do backslide on rather rare occasion. However, the world took exactly the wrong approach by accepting the Hitler regime as legitimate and not asserting immediate pressure in favor of the democrats. In a world of democracies, no despotic thug could last long.

Yes, Sharon and Bush are democratically elected leaders. That is why there are no dead Democrats strewn around the streets of New York, or Labourites in Tel Aviv. I never claimed that democracies do not go to war. (Thank G-d!)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

India and Pakistan are Democracies, yet they love to fight wars with one another; thier at 3 and counting.[/quote]

Pervez Musharraf, the current Pakistani leader, came to power through a military coup. Pakistan until recently supported Kashmiri terrorism against India. The Pakis have flirted with democracy, but they're not there yet. When both the countries become democracies, they will peaceably work out there differences, as do, say, France and Germany or Romania and Hungary. They may even be doing so now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Problem is Arab countries do not have this middle class that you speak of. They largely rely on feudalistic rule, with feudal landlords and peasants, sheikhs and clans, tribes and what not. With a few select elite families controlling the factors of production. The Middle Class is very small.[/quote]

As yet. But democracy and middle class generally lead to each other. And should Namibia, Jamaica and Moldova abandon the democratic experiment on account of poverty?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Was the US during the 1980s not a democratic system?[/quote]

Yes. But we did not support terrorist groups. Terrorism seeks to achieve political ends through the deliberate murder of civilians. Thus, UNITA or the U.S. Marines, which do not primarily target civilians, are not terrorists; Hezbollah, the IRA and the FARC are. Simple.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many "elected" officials have killed thier own people.[/quote]

An election does not a democracy make, though it is the most visible and arguably most vital feature of the system. Hence, a flawed Zimbabwean or Belorussian election does not make the country democratic, and a legitimate German or Venezuelan election can end or harm the system.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alright, I'll give you this one, but this largely doesn't apply to the Mid-east as Arabs have a different structure of society.[/quote]

As did the Japanese, the Botswanans, and the Mongolians.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't these things go against the very fundamentals of conservatism?[/quote]

Oh, yes. But I am not a conservative. I am a Lockean liberal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the third world, they do.[/quote]

Not in a real democracy. Even the Turkmenbashi and NixonNow hold elections.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Replace "Free" with burgoise countries, core vs periphery.[/quote]

Is this a coincidence? Or has a bourgeoise class evolved to represent 80%+ of democratic populations because of their governmental and economic policies, and a core emerged around the original core democratic states (US, France, UK, and later Germany and Japan).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is India was largely Democratic during the Cold-War, food shortages are caused by low-income religous people being fruitful and multiplying which are in turn encouraged by consumption based capitalism.[/quote]

And yet according to Indian-born Cambridge professor Amartya Sen, there has not been a true famine in India since independence. Compare this to the Great Leap Forward, the 1930s Ukrainian famine, or the Ethiopian famine of the '80s, all of which occurred under Marxist tyrannies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, genocide of the proletariat, very great system you got there.[/qoute]

Only if malaria microbes, poppies, and coca plants are parts of the proletariat.

To the list of democratic benefits, one could add less environmental degradation, less political corruption, and  far fewer refugees (which is related to war issues).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These bourgeois rights include the so-called institution of universal sufferage as well. That's what poor people deal with all over the third world, my neighborhood included. [/quote]

Correct, a core democratic right is universal suffrage. And no, it is not available all over the third world, but only in free dountries. And unless your neighborhood is in Hanoi or Kinshasa, I highly doubt you are correct.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And yes, often people must fight for freedom, like today's Lebanese and Ukrainians. I find little in the world more inspiring. You?

Actually, quite a lot happens, much of it listed above. Unless negative liberty has a different meaning, like the liberty of the Poles before 1989 or the liberty of today's Cubans?

[M]

Hezbollah has the hearts and minds of Hezbollah, and no one else. Their are numerous reports that the vast bulk of their protesters were bused in from Syria. With these protests, on the other hand- entire villages in Lebanon are empty but for the very old and very infirm, with everyone else in the streets of Beirut. Savelebanon.com suggests it may be the largest protest (by percentage of national population) in world history.