Watching political developments unfold in the Middle East—from Libya’s post-Qaddafi chaos to the growing authoritarianism of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and of Nouri al-Maliki in post-Saddam Hussein, and now the violent dissolution of post-Bashar Assad Syria—it is easy to despair of the possibility of real democracy taking root in the region or to pine for the days of the strongmen. Sheri Berman, a professor of political science at Columbia University, offers a must-read counterpoint in the new issue of Foreign Affairs. She reminds us that the process of democratic development was not very smooth in Western Europe either—that in fact it took decades, even centuries.
She offers the examples of France, Italy, and Germany: all now well-established liberal democracies but at one point they were anything but.
France, after all, transitioned from absolute monarchy by way of the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror. This was followed by numerous further upheavals that Berman does not mention, including the Bourbon restoration from 1815 to 1830, the July Revolution of 1830, the Revolution of 1848, the proclamation of the Second Empire in 1851, the creation of the Third Republic in 1870, the Vichy regime from 1940 to 1944, and, finally, in 1958 the overthrow of the Fourth Republic and the birth of the Fifth Republic which has lasted to this day.
Germany, for its part, was forcibly created by Bismarck out of numerous smaller states in the decades leading up to 1871 and democracy did not emerge until after World War I—only to be snuffed out starting in 1933 by Adolf Hitler. Out of the post-war rubble emerged a West Germany that was democratic and an East Germany that was not. A unified, democratic Germany was not created until 1990.
As for Italy, it, too, did not emerge as a unified state until relatively late (1870). And it, too, saw its nascent democracy usurped by a fascist (Benito Mussolini), and it did not become a true liberal democracy until after World War II.
Nor was the process of democratization painless in the United States: It took two outright wars (the War of Independence and the Civil War) to establish self-government and another period of violent upheaval (the Civil Rights era of the 1950s-60s) to realize the potential of the Constitution.
Considering the tribulations suffered by the U.S. and Europe on the road to democracy, it is hardly surprising that the process of political reform is proving painful in the Middle East. As Berman reminds us: “Stable liberal democracy requires more than just a shift in political forms; it also involves eliminating the antidemocratic social, cultural, and economic legacies of the old regime. Such a process takes lots of time and effort, over multiple tries.”
She is right. Anyone who reads her article, “The Promise of the Arab Spring,” should gain a measure of patience and understanding for what it is currently happening in the Middle East. We cannot expect overnight miracles, but that does not mean that it is possible to cling to the rule of discredited strongmen—any more than Europe today could possibly return to the rule of absolute monarchs.
Oh, centuries, well, why didn't you say so. nAbout as long as it will take to have an Islamic Reformation. n nIn the meantime, let's just keep WMD's steak knives, and matches out of their hands. n nIf you must call it something, call it an Arab Glacial Warming Period. 10,000 years to go before fruit trees blossom.
Bwa Ha! Nailed it. For Mr. Boot to use the empty term "Arab Spring" in any context apart from a sick joke . . . is a sick joke. n n
nope. sorry. not buying it. and I'm surprised and a little sad that commentary is. n nit really doesn't matter how many nation-states Bismarck had to deal with, or how bloody the French Revolution was. there's one big difference in the Middle East, not mentioned here, which is ISLAM. n nIslam doesn't play well with others. Islam considers advocates of all other religions infidels and apostates. the "democracy" the Muslims are voting in is the "one man/one vote/one time" sort that ushers in shar'ia law and burns down churches. n nthis foolish optimism reminds me of George Mitchell, who thought that since he helped bring the Catholics and Protestants together in Ireland, he'd be able to work a similar miracle in Israel. he didn't realize–just as this author doesn't realize–that some people just don't want the same things we want.
Another important difference between the Arab Spring and modern Europe is that democracy is an utterly Western concept. Europe had Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Hobbes and Locke to inspire a new politics. The Arab world has no such enlightened philosophers. It has Hasan al-Banna, Nasser, Arafat and the like. Don't hold your breath for democracy to spring from this pile of manure.
Ah now they tell us.
Instead of counting the change from dictatorship to democracy in years, let's count it in lives. How many lives must be lost to have a democracy? How many people will be sacrificed to get there? How many children, women, and men will die, today and for the next so many years, so these nations can do what they need to do. n nWhat makes this post unsettling is that Max is basically saying that Islamism is fine and dandy….for a while. Sure, it's not democracy. Yes, it's tyrannical. And let's face it, women suffer, citizens are denied any sort of human rights. Education is limited to Koranic studies. And justice means a woman (never a man) hanging from a tree for adultery, amputation of limbs for stealing, and oh, yes, girls can be burned to death for not wearing the proper clothing when fleeing a burning building (see Saudi Arabia). n nHow many lives shall the world lose because we just want to wait for Islamic nations to come to democracy? What time frame is right for the change? 10-years? 50? 250? n nThe problem here is that I agree Islamic nations could take a long time to get to democracy on their own. In fact, the odds are that these nations will never get to anything close to a liberal democracy. What's is so irritating in this post is that there's no mention of the United States. Where are we in the evolution of these Islamic states? How are we, the greatest nation on earth, helping these backward peoples to come to liberal democratic government? What could, and should, the U.S.A. do to bring forth the necessary changes? n nThat Max misses that, that he leaves out the role of the U.S., and of other nations, who should (and must) work to help these people evolve is shameful. n nAnd, oh by the way, just how long did it take that tiny nation of Jews to establish democracy in the middle east? Oh, right, Israel began as a democracy and has continued to be so. Maybe that's the counterexample to this whole line of thinking that Max is so happy to concur with.
Yes, it's just more of the hard racism of zero expectations. n nOn the other hand, 'nation building' is a fool's errand in the Muslim world. n nWe had a chance, in Iraq, the ancient cultural heart of the Arab world. If ever there was a place with the sophistication and history to support a transition to democracy, it was there, and we blew it, or we proved it is not doable there. n nAfghanistan is hopeless, as is Egypt and East Africa. n nThe best solution may have been the Korean model, where we accept military dictatorships transitioning into corrupt oligarchies, eventually transitioning into real democracy. That is sort of where Egypt was going before Obama in his wisdom decided to place his trust in the MB. n nIslam is the problem, and there is no solution.
Islam is the problem and it's completely inflexible and antithetical to a liberal democracy. However, it may be possible to have democracy with Islam as long as Islam is not the state religion–can never be the state religion–and the state respects religious freedom. This was working for a time in Turkey. Alas, not so today. n nWhat galls me, however, is that there seems to be no role for countries to at least try to smooth and calm the fires of Islam in these countries. That the U.S. does nothing to promote human rights in, say, Saudi Arabia, is disgraceful. n nWe do nothing to encourage Western values in, say, Egypt yet we provide them billions of dollars every year. It is, as you note, a failure of expectations. We assume these people are beneath Western standards and they live up to our expectations. It would be good, and right, to hear the president, the secretary of state, and other leaders to at least call out these regimes and their crimes against their people. That they don't, that they remain silent, only encourages these countries. n nMaybe Max is right, and change to liberal democracy will take a long time. If so, should we not at least be on the side of pushing and helping it along? If these countries to come to change, how will they view us, who left them on their own for far too long? Just some thoughts.
The only thing to be despaired of in Syria is the lack of overt support the US has provided. Syria is the chiefest of nations as far as importance goes (unless we count the Green Revolution in Iran as the Spring's spring) to be overtaken by the Arab Spring: and who cares that it is now filled with "violent dissolution"–they're overthrowing a tyrant who has enforced his refusal to step down with great violence. (I criticize Boot and his use of Syria as an example here only because I am–or was–both MORE and less optimistic than he is.) The efficacy of protest generally supposes no great tyranny. n nWhere the Arab Spring has proved worse is where the US was, in one manner or another, gratified before the events of the Arab Spring–and where now the interest of the US is in less or no manner being pursued, either by our President or the post-Arab Spring government there. That would largely be Egypt, although I'm not sure as to how things in Bahrain have gone. (This is more FP analysis than political analysis. Do I think Egypt holds second elections? No, I'm doubtful.) n n~ n nEdit at Score -1: I hope that whoever marked this comment down did so for disagreement with such a statement as this, "Syria is the chiefest of nations as far as importance goes [] to be overtaken by the Arab Spring[.]" (I credit Syria as being more important than Egypt, but I can see what one might state otherwise.) n nOr, perhaps, in saying this, "Where the Arab Spring has proved worse is where the US was, in one manner or another, gratified before the events of the Arab Spring–and where now the interest of the US is in less or no manner being pursued, either by our President or the post-Arab Spring government there," I've strayed too far from the conceit of Max's post, which is about being patient for democracy. n nOtherwise, I don't know what I have to repent for. I am actually listening on "commutes" to some audio about George Washington and I can tell you how very little our "Republic" [rather, the "proto-Republic] functioned during the Revolutionary War. Simply put, similarly, Syria is in an uncertain state–one before any wherein we could have expectations for it (without our own action being the source of our expectations). n nIt is right to to be wary about the Arab Spring's track record, where Islamists have seized various regional and national efforts to their own effects –but, quite frankly, I can't blame the Syrian who has joined with an Al Qaeda affiliate–the sentiment being "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."
The Middle East is huge, largely misunderstood by us, and very unpredictable place. It is plausible to consider a parallel between early Christianity, Inquisition, setting people on fire, Protestants and Catholics killing each other, revolutions, counterrevolutions, WW1, WW2, and finally liberal democracy of the EU to reflect what is happening now in the Middle East. My response: “So what?” We should treat Middle East as bad neighborhood, send there cops to requisite guns (WMD) to serve a warrant, and get out there without trying to be social workers (nation builders). We don’t know at what link the Middle East at its chain of historical development. Let’s let it play on its own.
Quick, export the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Surely we could cut down the decades. n nThe Occupying Powers of West Germany and Japan CHANGED THE TEXTBOOKS. n nEven Bush43 could not get the House of Saud to actually do that, despite the promise.
Gee wiz, the French Revolution, the American Civil War, Hitler & Hirohito & WWII, , all just blips on the ever winding yet never failing road to democracy, I'm not sure I think this is a reasonable assessment of history at all. n nI certainly wouldn't feel heartened by it if I were a freedom craving Arab this winter. And I don't feel re-assured by it as a 50-something American Grandmother this winter either. n nAnd as for no return to absolute monarchy, I wouldn't put any money on that number either.
Max, isn't 100's of years long enough to be patient? n nArabs are demonstrably not civilized or civilize-able people. n nYou must live in a state that recently legalized marijuana.
Obama has only rebuilt the Islamic Caliphate and spawned a new set of terrorist states….unreal he has not been called on this.
Max nailed it. n nIt took a long time in 'Western Democracies' to separate the church from the state. The fact that a majority of the population was 'church going' gave the church a huge organizing advantage. The same is true of the mosque the Muslim world.