Remaking the Arab world
National Post
Saturday, March 01, 2003
nationalpost.com
In a speech to the American Enterprise Institute on Wednesday, U.S. President George W. Bush made the case for war in terms that transcend weapons of mass destruction and UN resolutions. "A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region," he declared. "The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder." A democratic revolution, the President said, could even help lead to a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
We hope the world pays heed to Mr. Bush's message. While disarming Iraq, ending the country's sponsorship of terrorism and liberating Saddam Hussein's subjects are all war-worthy goals, the greatest dividend to be hoped for in the long run is the transformation of the Arab Middle East.
In the political and social spheres, conditions in the Arab world are indeed appalling. Out of the 22 members of the Arab league, there does not exist a single multi-party democracy. Women are typically treated as third-class citizens. In many countries, homosexuality is a capital crime. Government censorship is rampant. To deflect anger, state officials rely on anti-Israeli, anti-Western propaganda, through which the masses have been left to marinate in what Middle East scholar Fouad Ajami calls "belligerence and self-pity."
Why has the Arab world fallen so far behind? One reason has to do with religion. Islam, the dominant religion in all Arab countries, is a proud, monotheistic faith whose teachings are a great comfort to the 1.3-billion people around the world who follow them. But mainstream Islamic movements still reject a true separation of mosque and state, an essential element in any democratic political system. Because the concept of "reform" in Muslim societies is still inextricably linked with the idea of religious purification, Arab opposition groups tend to be especially theocratic in their outlook. In Egypt, for instance, the primary force in opposition is the Muslim Brotherhood, a fundamentalist group that spawned the terrorist organization Al Jihad, which recently became part of al-Qaeda. In Kuwait, which has created a sort of ornamental parliament as a baby step toward democracy, the leading vote-getters are Islamists.
Another factor militating against democracy is the deep tribalism that persists in the Middle East. For democracy to function properly, groups within societies must have faith they will not be repressed if their designated protector is voted out of office. But in Arab nations, as in no other part of the world except perhaps sub-Saharan Africa, this faith is absent. And so it is taken for granted that violence is the sole avenue to power; and that, power, once attained, must never be relinquished. In Iraq, where Saddam and his ruling clique from Tikrit's al-Bu Nasir tribe dominate, the scale of brutality is greater than in other Arab nations. But insofar as Saddam relies on fear, torture and murder to neutralize opponents, his philosophy is typical of the region.
Not only has this combination of tribalism and pre-Enlightenment Islamic thought prevented the Arab Middle East from participating in the democratic revolution of the late 20th-century, it has also blocked the emergence of strong national identities of a sort that can bring Arabs together under laws and institutions, rather than strongmen. As Samuel P. Huntington writes in The Clash of Civilizations & the Remaking of World Order, loyalty in many Arab and Muslim societies tends to follow a U-shape -- high in regard to the small-scale allegiance to clan and the large-scale allegiance to Islam, but low in regard to the middle rung of national identity.
Given these deep-seated ideological and sociological problems, it is unrealistic to expect Arab democracies to spring up overnight. But by liberating Iraq and overseeing the post-war reconstruction, the United States might at least set the slow process of transformation in motion. With U.S. troops acting as guardians, members of Iraq's Sunni minority might agree to a representative government -- something that would be impossible if they feared unchecked power might devolve to the country's majority Shiites. The United States would help create a new constitutional scheme -- one that incorporates Western, pluralistic values, and which guarantees the free practice of religion. Eventually, after a decade or so, something we in the West recognize as a democracy might be born.
Democratization would become contagious. Because the vast majority of Iraqis will regard the Americans as liberators, a reservoir of goodwill would be created. As Mr. Ajami wrote in the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs, "Iraq may offer a ... base in the Arab world free of the poison of anti-Americanism. The country is not hemmed in by the kind of religious prohibitions that stalk the U.S. presence in the Saudi realm. It may have a greater readiness for democracy than Egypt, if only because it is wealthier and is free of the weight of Egypt's demographic pressures and the steady menace of an Islamist movement."
In his speech on Wednesday, Mr. Bush declared that "we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary," and compared the coming reconstruction project with the rebuilding of Japan and Germany six decades ago: "America has made and kept this kind of commitment before -- in the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home."
The historical comparison is apt, and we hope Mr. Bush follows through on these words. Through its sustained presence in Iraq, the United States will have a rare opportunity to transform the Arab Middle East. It would be a tragedy if the President turned his back on this crucial enterprise once the immediate threat posed by Saddam is extinguished. |
