Democracy is not the Answer

Anyone who has studied political science has most certainly read Aristotle. He studied hundreds of constitutions throughout the ancient world, and determined there is no universal answer to all societies, some political forms of organization work in certain societies, while not in others. Promoting democracy in the Middle East is official US and EU policy, but is this what is best for Middle Eastern societies? The problem with implementing democracy in the Middle East is that the region doesn’t have a tradition of religious, economic, and social liberties. Religious intolerance is not a cultural variation which should be respected and incorporated into their ‘democracy’; it goes against universal human rights.
Undesired Results: Promoting democracy is the Middle East has strengthened Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, gotten Hamas elected by Palestinians, caused the rise of religious parties with private militias in Iraq, led to the ‘election’ of Ahmadinejad in Iran, and pretty soon, I suspect, the election of an Islamic extremist as leader of Pakistan (and they already have nuclear weapons).
“Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror,” declared US President Bush during his latest State of the Union address. His statement, unfortunately, does not apply to any of the forms of democracy emerging in the Middle East (with the exception of Turkey). What Bush assumes is that respect for liberty goes hand in hand with democracy, in the Middle East it obviously does not. The level of violence in their response to the provocative Danish cartoons is proof of Middle Eastern rejection of “tolerance and freedom of expression,” vital to the success of a modern democracy. “This coming to terms with democracy should not be mistaken for a coming to terms with Western values such as liberalism, tolerance and freedom.” – F. Zakaria
. In southern Iraq, Shiite religious parties rule unrestrained: civil servants and teachers have been subjected to religious/political tests, women’s liberties are restricted as never before, and all sorts of entertainment is being banned. Within Jaafari’s offices (Iraqi Prime Minister), one sees women covered in veils and gloves, a level of zeal unseen under Saddam. The current trend is to combine Islamic zeal with populist appeal. The Muslim Brotherhood, well before 9/11, had condemned terrorist attacks against Mubarak’s government and recently distanced itself from the Iraqi insurgency’s approach, rather focusing on building popular support for its own social and political program within Egypt. During his daily television appearances, Iran’s Ahmadinejad does not focus on Islamic dogma; he speaks of reducing poverty, providing subsidies, anti-corruption measures, and nationalism, expressed by the nuclear program. In Palestine, Hamas campaigned under a banner of anti-corruption, social services and aggressive nationalism, and they were chosen in fair elections. By combining Islam with popular issues, these organizations have achieved mass support for their programs, which are extremely illiberal: fewer rights for minorities, reversal of women’s civil liberties, forced Sharia and showdowns with the West and Israel.
In the Middle East secularism has been represented by the likes of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Kaddafi, Hosni Mubarak, Yasir Arafat; no wonder secularism lacks appeal. “Islamic fundamentalism evokes authenticity, pride, cultural assertiveness and defiance...In face of the powerlessness, alienation and confusion that the modern world breeds, these groups say simply, ‘Islam is the solution.’” In Iraq, the US deconstructed established social structures and governing arrangements with no thought as to what would replace them. “Freedom and democracy” do not magically appear: in the void left by Saddam, rule by religious extremism has stepped in, mostly in southern Iraq. In Iran, under ‘not-so-free’ elections, 5 candidates ran for president, the ‘pro-Western liberal’ finished last, while the ‘conservative Islamic radical’ won.
“If we do not understand the history, culture, and politics of these countries we are ‘reforming,’ we will be in for an extremely rocky ride.” – F. Zakaria. What to do? The more extremists are suppressed, the more they rise in appeal. And if we promote democracy in the Middle East, what type of leader will they choose? If they elect extremists, by having endorsed democracy we have provided legitimacy for their rule. What’s next, overthrow democratically-elected leaders after all this talk of ‘freedom and democracy’?
I personally believe most nations in the Middle East are unprepared for democracy, nor should we promote democratic systems, at this point in time, because they will legitimately elect extremists who pose more danger than someone like Saddam ever did.

Fuck you all.