Overcooked
Before they turned up the heat on Berlusconi, he was just right.
BY TUNKU VARADARAJAN
Tuesday, October 2, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT
These aren't good times for those who like their Berlusconi al dente. The Italian prime minister has been steeped in hot water ever since he said, last Wednesday, that Western civilization is superior to the Islamic one. The effects of this oversteeping are beginning to show: Silvio Berlusconi has turned soggy and limp, and was last seen mumbling that he had been quoted out of context, and that he was sorry if he had "offended the sensitivities" of his Arab and Muslim friends.
At a superficial and diplomatic level--often the same thing--one might conclude that it was rather clumsy of Mr. Berlusconi to say what he did just as an American-led alliance against Islamic terrorism is positioning itself to fire a first salvo. So if fault is to be found with him, and a mild spanking administered, it should be over the poorness of his timing, no more.
Would that matters were confined to such questions of finesse! Instead, there has been a gush of outrage, not merely from politicians in the Islamic world--who would be failing in their theatrical duties if they remained silent--but also from the press and politicians of the West. The Toronto Globe and Mail characterized his statement as a "racial slur." The Washington Post described his remarks as "dangerous rantings," as a result of which Italy, Mr. Berlusconi's country, had been left "humiliated." European Union worthies queued up to shake their heads and say that the man from Rome had been "offensive." Overall, no one missed a chance to say that Mr. Berlusconi had let the side down badly.
But what did Mr. Berlusconi say that was so unpalatable? He told a news conference in Berlin that "we must be aware of the superiority of our civilization, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights and--in contrast with Islamic countries--respect for religious and political rights, a system that has as its values understandings of diversity and tolerance." He also claimed Western civilization is superior because it "has at its core, as its greatest value, freedom, which is not the heritage of Islamic culture."
Now what is so wrong with that? Can anyone argue, empirically or otherwise, that civil and political rights are not better protected in the West? Can anyone deny that rights and freedoms exist hardly at all in countries of Muslim majority?
The annual "Freedom in the World" survey by Freedom House lists countries as "free," "partly free," and "not free." There is just a single Islamic country in the "free" category. The methodology employed isn't biased or "culturally weighted." Countries are free if they are electoral democracies, in which citizens can vote governments out of office, and in which they can develop their own views and institutions, as well as an unfettered personal autonomy apart from the state. This includes the right to practice the religion of one's choice, to reject the religion of a majority, and indeed, to be vociferously atheist.
Of the 11 countries rated "worst," seven were Islamic: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Turkmenistan. The "not free" category, along with those seven, reads like a Who's Who of Muslim countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Brunei, Egypt, Iran, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, the Maldives, Mauritania, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Yemen.
Only Albania, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Djibouti, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco and Turkey figure among Muslim countries that are "partly free," and only one Muslim country--Mali--is listed as "free." All these nations have cultural, geopolitical or historical characteristics that distinguish them from the mass of Muslim countries, and that mitigate, or dilute, the severity of the antidemocratic political tendencies that flourish in other Muslim countries. And in Kuwait's case, the analysts from Freedom House are just plain wrong. The emirate is not free at all.
All of this suggests that Mr. Berlusconi hit bull's-eye. The outpouring of liberal criticism of him in the West is, in fact, perverse proof of what he lauds in Western civilization. Ours is a system, a society, that is so tolerant that it is willing, even, to rise to the defense of the indefensible, which is to say that its spokesmen--its arbiters of correctness--are willing to regard as morally equal to Western society a group of countries that would put people of their liberal ilk behind bars, or even to death, without much ado at all.
The problem with the earnest defenders of Islam in the West--with scholars of Islam in Western universities, with politicians posturing as statesmen and with newspaper editorial writers--is that they do not compare like with like when they address Mr. Berlusconi's assertion. They compare what is practiced in the West--the clear, discernible lines of Western civilization, the comportment of Western peoples and institutions--with an Islamic ideal. This is quite absurd, not to mention intellectually dishonest.
Let's separate the "ideal" from the current reality. Every civilization, including those long gone--such as the Romans and the Mayans--has had its wonderful ideals. And they all have had moments of glory and greatness when they lived up to those ideals. But more often than not, they did not reach the lofty heights of their own paradigms.
Yet the reality of civilizations, as revealed by the present behavior of people and institutions within them, is very different. Regardless of the ideals of tolerance, Muslim countries today include the most intolerant in the world, ruled by the most obnoxious men or cliques or clans imaginable. Christians in the West may have brought slaves to America, but the reality of their society here today is tolerance and pluralism.
You can compare ideal with ideal, or you can compare the reality of one place with the reality of another. Let's not compare what "Islam says" with what the West does. Let's compare what people actually do. Here, the Muslim world looks pathetic.
Mr. Berlusconi may believe in the superiority of his own culture and civilization. That is not surprising. Ninety-nine percent of the human race also believes that, including his critics. But let us note, for the record, that constraints similar to the ones his critics wish for him do not apply to any Muslim leader who proclaims the superiority of his own religion and culture.
The greatest failure of Islamic societies--and of Islamic civilization--is the failure to generate a culture in which criticism and pluralism can be absorbed, and debated with. This applies just as much to political as to theological differences. Instead, those who deviate from the path deemed to be orthodox--especially those who argue for modern readings of religious texts and strictures, or for modernity in general--are cast as foes of Islamic society and civilization. Mr. Berlusconi's words may have been ill-timed. But they were the truest words he's spoken in his life.
Mr. Varadarajan is deputy editorial features editor of The Wall Street Journal. His column appears Tuesdays.
opinionjournal.com |
