Two years ago when the Arab
Spring was at its height, I warned of an excess of optimism. I wrote that euphoric observers who expected
Jeffersonian democracy to break out in the Middle East were liable to be
disappointed. Events have surely borne
this out.
Now I must caution against
an excess of hubris. Once more
politicians and expert consultants are suggesting that they know how to bring
democratic governance to places like Egypt.
They view the toppling of the Morsi regime with disdain, but claim to
know how progress can be salvaged.
The trick, we are told, is
to refrain from alienating the Muslim Brotherhood. Its members are so well organized and so
deeply committed that we cannot afford to ignore them. Instead, they must be welcomed into an
administration that respects the differences between religious and secular
factions.
Only a large tent, it is
argued, can achieve the reconciliation necessary to avoid an Egyptian civil
war. Only when people sit down and work
through their disagreements can they come up with policies that satisfy their
respective interests. Doing less is
merely a formula for frustration and on-going grievances.
As with so much political
rhetoric, this sounds sensible. People,
it is said, need to be grown-ups who are willing to set their political
commitments aside so as to figure out what is best for all. Yet how well does this work in practice? The evidence suggests, not well at all.
Consider the current impasse
in Washington. How well have Republicans
and Democrats been able to resolve their policy differences? Or if we zoom out a bit, how well have
liberals and conservatives been able to achieve reconciliation? Clearly, their disagreements have lasted for
decades.
Nevertheless while these
folks are at each other’s throats, they have not literally gone to war. They have been able to coexist, albeit
uncomfortably. The slave versus free
issue, however, produced more violence.
It precipitated a war between the states that killed more Americans than
any other of our conflicts.
Even so, the bone of
contention out-lived the bloodshed.
Indeed, we are still dealing with black and white disputes as witnessed
by the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin affair.
Passions continue to run high and not everyone is satisfied after
centuries of strife.
Why then should the Arab
world be different? Why should we expect
that democracy, which took hundreds of years to evolve in the West, will
suddenly arise in the unfertile soil of the Middle East just because we wish it
to? In reality, its peoples, who have
never experienced self-governance, do not have the culture to make it happen.
Look at what is actually taking
place. Sunnis and Shias continue to blow
each other up in Iraq. The Taliban and
the central government remain at war in Afghanistan. The Alawites have resorted to poison gas and
mass bombings to cling to power in Syria.
And Libya has become the new home for a displaced Al Qaida.
Even Turkey, nearly a
century after Ataturk instituted a policy of westernization, has seen an
upsurge of Islamist versus secular violence.
The sad fact is that intractable differences do not dissipate merely by
installing the trappings of democracy.
True democracy cannot be achieved by pushing a button!
Lyndon Johnson used to urge
his opponents to sit down and reason with him.
In truth, he was more apt to twist arms than engage in logical
discussion. LBJ was a master at coercing
the recalcitrant into accepting his vision.
He was not nice, but rather muscularly persuasive.
Niceness and reasonableness
are not the seedbeds of democracy.
Unhappily violence, warfare, and contention are. We had a revolution and a civil war, the
English had a civil war and a glorious revolution, the French had a revolution
and numerous coups, and the Germans lost two world wars before democracy
prevailed.
Why should we expect the
Arabs to be different? Why do we believe
they should learn from our experience, when we didn’t learn from the experience
of others?
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment