An Op-Ed column to examine contrasting opinions about a current topic or issue
Democracy and the Middle East
By Ralph Pace
During the approach to the Iraqi conflict and the on-going battles, one of the primary justifications for the action has been the need to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. This has been a familiar theme in other “activities” associated with the Middle East.
It is not an approach limited to the current administration.
Carter, Bush the Elder, and Clinton also paid lip-service to this objective.
Having spent several years in the Middle East (Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria), I find the goal of introducing democracy – our concept of it, at least, highly questionable and very naïve of both our politicians and foreign service professionals.
We may find it difficult to accept but some very deep traits of the people of the Middle East neither lend themselves to nor embrace certain fundamental concepts of our democracy.
Probably the most significant difference is the role and place of religion and religious activities in the scheme of things. Even with the rise of fundamentalism in this nation’s political activities, we still believe in a separation between church and state.
The contrary is true in most Middle Eastern countries.
Regardless of the sectarian form of Islam they embrace, virtually all Middle East people believe that religion is an integral part of the political process. Consider the role of the imams in Iraq and Iran, for example, in determining public policy. What is significant about their role is not whether we agree with their actions but the fact that very few people in the Middle East question their right to exercise this power.
The status of women is another example of a major difference. In many Middle East nations they are deprived of suffrage, property rights, educational advancement, and even the right to drive a car.
Jimmy Carter may have set off a storm with his recent book’s reference to Israeli imposition of “apartheid” on Palestinians within its borders, but it is very clear that the concept of citizenship is restrictive. For example, for years the Palestinians have served as the primary civil service for countries like Kuwait; yet they are denied citizenship.
Unlike the European model, the Middle East has no historical precedence for a popular legislative branch of government, with the singular exception of Lebanon (Turkey, while technically in the Middle East, is not treated as Middle East because of its western orientation and proposed linkage to the European Union). In Europe, even under despotic kings, the concept of ‘parlements’ still existed, a concept that eventually led to democratically-elected governments. The only corollary to that in the Middle East is a tribal government which combined administration, legislative, and judicial powers under an oligarchic elite.
To think that we can impose a form of democracy similar to that which we espouse is both naïve and pointless. Perhaps in a few centuries the inclinations of the people of the Middle East will change. However, our immediate political goals in the Middle East, in general, and Iraq, specifically, should be to support political stability. That stability will call for the continuing role of religious leaders in the political process. It is not for us to decide whether this is good or bad. It is simply a question of what will work to enable these nations to find the stability needed to exist as functioning governments.
(Have an opinion that you'd like to share with the readers of Black River Today? Send your article, under 600 words, to [email protected] along with you name, phone number, and email address.)
