In his speech today on democracy in the Middle East, President Bush said: "Some skeptics of democracy assert that the traditions of Islam are inhospitable to the representative government. This 'cultural condescension,' as Ronald Reagan termed it, has a long history. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, a so-called Japan expert asserted that democracy in that former empire would 'never work.' Another observer declared the prospects for democracy in post-Hitler Germany are, and I quote, 'most uncertain at best' -- he made that claim in 1957."
I have been skeptical in print about the possibilities for democracy in Iraq. As such, two questions:
1. Is it "cultural condescension" if the skepticism about democracy in an Islamic context that the President derides comes from Muslims themselves? In the article I linked to above I quote the radical Muslim writer Abdul Qader Abdul Aziz, who explicitly rules out Western political models for Islamic societies: "[I]n kufr, or disbelief, is the one who claims that the Muslims are in need for the systems of democracy, communism or any other ideology, without which the Muslims lived and applied the rules of Allah in matters that faced them for 14 centuries."
This man is not alone. Muslim theorists throughout the world have derided democracy, declaring it a Western import, foreign to Islam. See Onward Muslim Soldiers for profiles of several of them, notably the influential Egyptian radical Muslim writer Sayyid Qutb. Does this mean that democracy must fail in Iraq? Certainly not. But Mr. President, I hope you are aware that skepticism about the compatibility of Islam and democracy comes not only from those who indulge in "cultural condescension," but also from significant elements within Islam.
2. Japan's state Shinto and Germany's Nazism were discredited and repudiated ideologies after World War II. What real evidence is there that radical Islam is today in Iraq or anywhere else a discredited and repudiated ideology, or that it will come to be one because of any actions by Americans or others in the future?
I share Bush's hope that democracy will take hold in the Middle East. But with all respect I believe that to gloss over the real obstacles it faces only sets us up for disappointment and worse.
(Postscript: As readers have pointed out, Bush also said this: "It should be clear to all that Islam -- the faith of one-fifth of humanity -- is consistent with democratic rule. Democratic progress is found in many predominantly Muslim countries -- in Turkey and Indonesia, and Senegal and Albania, Niger and Sierra Leone. Muslim men and women are good citizens of India and South Africa, of the nations of Western Europe, and of the United States of America.
More than half of all the Muslims in the world live in freedom under democratically constituted governments."
Granted. I think it would be as asinine as the President suggests it would to say that Muslims can't live in democracies. But the problem with the states he mentioned, although each is quite different from the other, is that none of them are "Islamic democracies." That is, none are constituted as democracies by means of Islamic principles. All have stepped away from Sharia in varying degrees in order to establish, insofar as they have, democratic rule. That being the case, each is under pressure, again in varying degrees, from elements within each country who believe that the government is illegitimate on Islamic grounds. And the ideology of those people not only has not been discredited, it is quite widespread today, notably in Iraq.
So what I wish the President would address, since he has brought up the subject, is how he intends to deal, and how he thinks Muslims ought to deal, with the Sharia and with those who think that it must be the foundation of any Muslim state. Because those people are not outsiders being condescending, they are insiders in Muslim society and they are not going away.)
Robert, while the paragraph you quoted wasn't so great, you're overlooking Bush's actual argument:
Bush: "It should be clear to all that Islam -- the faith of one-fifth of humanity -- is consistent with democratic rule. Democratic progress is found in many predominantly Muslim countries -- in Turkey and Indonesia, and Senegal and Albania, Niger and Sierra Leone. Muslim men and women are good citizens of India and South Africa, of the nations of Western Europe, and of the United States of America.
More than half of all the Muslims in the world live in freedom under democratically constituted governments."
What say you? I'm too ignorant of the conditions in most of those countries to be able to evaluate his argument. I know you don't like to comment on every one of your commenter's posts, but this argument of Bush's is really important. I wonder whether there is some flaw in it, as surely Daniel Pipes would have used it by now if it were on the money, yet I haven't seen Pipes use it. On the other hand, perhaps Pipes had some influence in the writing of this very speech.
The president is not going to be as overt as you in indicating what you did. Its left to be read betweent he lines.
Additionally, Jim is right. There are many examples of Muslims living under democratic or semi-free governments.
Combined, I think you have to give the president the benefit of the doubt that if he made 2 steps forward in his ultimate statement in this speech, that the step back is one for subtlety, not for obliviousness.
I think this can be read as "We want to help you live freely, but if you resist in a form which threatens our own well being, we will stay the course to defeat you."
It's all between the lines, in my opinion.
The problem is that nearly 400 million of the Muslims Bush mentioned are those who live in India and Indonesia. The Muslims of India are outnumbered by 900 million Hindus. When the Muslims act up, the Hindus retaliate with even stronger violence. So their civilized behavior is forced on them out of necessity. Take away the Hindus and you have a larger Pakistan.
Indonesia has only in the past few years become a democracy. Suharto and Sukarno ruthlessly kept the lid on before that. But since democracy began, there have been repeated massacres of Christians in Indonesia (much of the East Timor dispute was religious). I wouldn't lay good odds that democracy will survive in the face of Islam.
Turkey is a better example of Islam and democracy, but then the Turks have always been looking towards the West for possible improvements and ideas. Which is why they managed to conquer the Arabs and give Europe a good fight for centuries. The Albanians, Bosnians and Macedonians draw on the Turkish tradition, but they are relatively small countries in world-wide Islam. And even Turkish success relies heavily on an Army ever willing to step in and crush Islamism.
Malaysia seems to be another decent example but as their retiring leader showed, there is great hatred in it's Muslim population. Worse, the large Chinese minority is the one that drives the economy and keeps Malaysia modern. The retiring leader has publicly bemoaned the economic backwardness of his fellow Malay Muslims compared to his other citizens in the past.
Sierra Leone is engaged in a bloody and brutal civil war between many factions (Muslim, pagan and Christian). Not a good example yet.
And the Islamic minorities of Europe have been refusing to assimilate. If anything, they're turning even more strongly to Islamofascism and against democracy.
So the President is stretching it a lot. Still, he's the Islamic world's best hope. He's willing to give them a chance. If they don't take advantage of it, then one of them will stupidly attack us with nukes. And then, it's goodbye to over a billion Muslims. This is a war they can't win.
LenS: As a Malaysian, I can safely say that the Malay backwardness is not caused by Islam or any other ideology. For centuries, after the fall of Malacca, most Malays resulted into sustisnence farming, poor peasants that formed large clans that normally live in the same kampung, or village.
The reason why they are still backward is because of the government spoonfeeding policy. For example, why should a Malay mug really hard for his exam? He's place in a university is surely guarenteed. Why should a Malay company improve his competitive standing and dish out better tenders for government projects? A Malay company would surely get every contract, why bother? Why bother trying to improve our economic standing, we surely can get a cheap house in a nice neighbourhood.
Stop the spoonfeeding, within 3-6 generations, they wouldn't be as backward anymore.
Oh, your statement that the army in Turkey is the one responsible for democracy in Turkey - it is wrong. In fact, it is the biggest opstacle to democracy in Turkey. What it had defended is secularism, which does not equal democracy (Pol Pot's regime was secular - democratic?). It is indeed possible to mix a bit of religion into politics and remain democratic - as Israel had done with Judaism, much of Western Europe and Scandivinia with Christianity. And it is also possible to leave religion out and not be a democracy, like Communist China and Cuba.
LenS: G. W. Bush is the Islamic world's best hope? He's willing to give them a chance? When did the Islamic world ask for a chance to satisfy President Bush's wishes?
Millions of dollars were spent to promote democratic reform in Muslim countries in the nineties. That didn't work, so now we spend American lives and limbs - along with billions of dollars - to promote it. The results will be no more encouraging than before. I have a better idea. Stop treating the War on Terror like an opportunity for social welfare experimentation that won't lessen the likelihood of large-scale terror attacks in the U.S. Stop giving taxpayer money and diplomatic support to despotic regimes. Don't declare any new, unnecessary objectives. Then hire someone to lecture the country on the regrettable tenure of Woodrow "Safe for Democracy" Wilson.
It would appear that there are two battles ongoing: (a) The long-term battle to win the hearts and souls of individuals in the Middle East against current dictators and Islamist Extremist theocracy - to a Westernized form of democracy, and (b) The current war against Islamist Extremist Global Terrorists.
The USA believes today that by investing in the long term goals of (a) that they can undermine support for (b). That is a position and a policy of hopefulness. But time will tell whether or not by pursuing both goals simultaneously - neither will be effectively achieved. That is a reasonable possibility that should be intelligently discussed, and which I have not yet seen in the media due to PC fears.
In the short term, if Islamist Extremist Global Terror is NOT stopped, then long term goals in the Middle East will become irrelevant to the West, because the West will not continue to support the dream of democracy for Middle East nations funding murder of Western citizens. Hopefully, these two policies can work effectively and simultaneously.
But funding for USA Homeland Security MUST be taken seriously. And it is a REAL QUESTION whether it has been. A fair question also would be is any amount of funding truly enough for Homeland Security. But while the USA is spending $87B, as now described, in a laudable goal to bring democracy to Middle East, the USA citizens better be kept safe. Are they?
That is the biggest question that needs to be asked.
When the FBI has to annually send warnings to law enforcement agencies to watch for terror attacks during Ramadan, there is still a huge gap in USA national security that has not been addressed.
Could one imagine such reports being sent out because Yom Kippur or Christmas is approaching?
That shows there is something not right in the USA and its relationship with American Islam, to ensure that we can all live together safely here.
The reality is that while there are many terror groups in USA, the true bogeyman for USA law enforcement is Islamist Extremist Terrorists.
The reality is that American Islam and the American people need to first find a way to live together. Two years after 9/11, there has been very little accomplished there. Two years after 9/11, there has been very limited public renunciation and rejection of Islamist Extremism.
That is a precondition for the USA to truly support goals of democracy in the Middle East.
Islam, like Shintoism and Nazism, must be rooted out and eradicated, not accommodated.
2. Japan's state Shinto and Germany's Nazism were discredited and repudiated ideologies after World War II. What real evidence is there that radical Islam is today in Iraq or anywhere else a discredited and repudiated ideology, or that it will come to be one because of any actions by Americans or others in the future?
Islam, like Shintoism and Nazism, must be rooted out and eradicated, not accommodated. Remember those war triales in Germany after WWII, and the fact that Shintoism was outlawed by General McAurther on December 15, 1945. Go to the history channel to see where we are headed with the islamfashist problem. The person below who mentioned the ultimate use of nukes has got it right, only this time we won't be the first to use them; but we will erradicate the total problem once they are used on us. Some beliefs are not good for man or beast to project onto the rest of the world, and must be destroyed, not isolated or accommodated; accomodation is a rediculous non-solution. Who wants to live perpetually in the 8th century AD and exist as slaves to evryone and everything -- man, deswase, nature -- everything.
Democracy and Islam are mutually exclusive. No Islamic country is truly a free democratic society. I can speak of Turkey since I lived there and studied its history and culture. Attaturk established a secular society in Turkey. His vision is called "Kemalism" which the military ruthlessly guards. Turks can participate in political parties and elections, but if the civilan government starts to stray from Kemalism the Army steps in and stops it. This system did not spring forth from any ideas found in Islam. (Attaturk had no use for religion in general and said so) Why is this? The answer is that the concept of inalienable rights is nowhere to be found in Islam. Inalienable rights endowed by a Creator is purely a Biblical Judeo-Christian concept. In order for Islam to embrace this concept and go on from there to embrace democracy and individual freedom, It would have to change. In other words, Islam would no longer be Islam.
One-half of all muslims may be living inside democratic countries, but I suggest that at least half of that number are merely (and temporarily) utilizing the freedoms that they enjoy to further the true goals of islam. I would also be willing to bet that the rest could go either way. They bide their time and hold their tongues. And as they already pray to Mecca five times a day, how much would their lives really be changed with the advent of shari'a?
Jimmy Carter tried to promote democracy in Iran. What did he get ? The Ayatolas. That's Islamic democracy, but I'm not sure that's what we want.
Can real democracy emerge in Iraq ?
The best, most optimistic answer is: maybe, but it won't be easy. It will take at least decades of American involvement, and the neighboring regimes in Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia will have to be reformed too, so that they don't disturb.
While no one can doubt the solidity of Bush's commitement, I have grave doubts about the will of Americans to sustain such a long term project.
So, a Vietnam like exit strategy is more probable - the project will be abandoned sooner or later, and Islamic barbarism will triumph.
If there's any truth to the statement that Muslims can sustain the democratic experiment, it will have to be done when the Jihadists are no longer a force within Islam. So where's the plan to defang the Wahhabis, among others?
As you pointed out, the flirtations with secularism and democracy are under extreme pressure by the Islamic purists.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was in part a result of the democratization of information. The captives in Russia and Eastern Europe were fully aware of the lie of Marxist-Leninism; I doubt if that is the case with Islam. When has an alternative to that religion truly threatened to significantly diminish the numbers of believers?
When the leaders of the Communist Empire were forced to give it up it was clear that they...as well as their subjects...were all too corrupted by the materialism and freedom of the West. Hence the demise was fairly bloodless.
One thinks of Iran, a country that has already seen the virtues of (relative) freedom and capitalism. Yet the fundamental tenents of Islam prevailed, casting that country back into the Middle Ages. We all hoped in recent months that we could somehow tilt the situation enough to remove the Mullahs by democratic revolution and maybe that will still happen.
But the rest of the Islamic world looks a little more problematic. Ignorance and fear is a climate where dictatorial regimes flourish. Reformation is needed as much as regime change.
An Administration too cowed by its own State Department, political correctness and at the same time unwilling to define the evil any more specifically than as "terrorism" is bound to fail.
Five decades of Liberalism has made our survival uncertain. There was a time when at least we could turn to the war party in our time of need.
Not now.
I need to answer a rhetorical question I raised above. Faith Freedom.org has an article claiming that several million Muslims a year are leaving Islam in Africa, with many converting to Christianity. There is hope!