Lessons from Iraq: Can Arab democracy happen?

National Review ^ | May 5, 2004 | John Derbyshire

[quidnunc]

Following the victory-but-fiasco that the British eked out in the Boer War of 1899-1902, Rudyard Kipling wrote:

Let us admit it fairly, as a business people should, We have had no end of a lesson: it will do us no end of good.

Now, I am not going to present an argument that Iraq is America's Boer War. I don't believe it is, even in potential. Not that there aren't some resemblances, mainly centered around the verb "to underestimate"; but we are not, except in the fevered imaginations of some of the more extreme Bush-haters, in the empire-building business. The "good" that Kipling looked forward to was a better and stronger British Empire ("We have had an Imperial lesson; it may make us an Empire yet!")

That's not us. It's certainly not me — I persist in regarding the whole thing as a punitive expedition against a major nuisance and probable future threat. It's not the more "neocon" of us neocons, either, though. The most anyone on the pro-war side hopes for is a modern, constitutional, independent nation in Iraq. I personally think that's a stretch; but it's not an ignoble idea, would actually be great for the whole world if it came to pass, and it certainly isn't imperialist.

I do, though, want to try to peer forward to see what lessons the Iraq war might end up teaching us. A few days ago I posted a column about how our domestic obsessions with "diversity" and "multiculturalism" influence the conduct of our foreign policy, and of this war. Here I'm going to try to look at the topic from the other side: Will the war change our national culture? Will it, in particular, hasten the crack-up of the multicultural ideology?

-snip-

[Eurotwit]

I thought this was an awfully confused article where the author jumps between the concepts of race and culture without any apparent consistency.

If he limited himself to talk about culture, he probably makes some valid points.

[Redbob]

IS there even a word for "democracy" in Arabic?

[AntiGuv]

Well, I scanned this article and I just wanted to note that the Turks and the Arabs do not share the same "population genetics" so I find the author's credibility a bit suspect that he implies as much.

Leaving that aside, of course democracy can 'happen' in the Arab world. The author's attempt to insinuate that they may be genetically incapable of that (while making sure to cover-his-ass by saying that he "guesses" their genes can handle democracy) is the lamest, most inane approach that I've ever seen to this topic.

The only reason to suspect democracy would have difficulty taking hold is religious tenets that interfere with that, but as Turkey and a half dozen other nations demonstrate, that is an empty argument as well.

[Steve_Seattle]

In Iraq, we are dealing with two different but intertwined elements: religion (Islam) and "race" (Arab-ness). For Arab Muslims, Islam is primarily, if not exclusively, God's gift to the Arab people, and consequently embodies a kind of Arab chauvinism. The Arab admires Mohammed BECAUSE HE IS AN ARAB, not just because he is The Prophet, and the Arab believes that Arabic is a sacred language just as much as the Jews of old believed Hebrew was a sacred language. The Arab believes he is better than everyone else, and must therefore find an explanation as to why his plight in the modern world is second-rate. Thus the demonization of the West and the constant claims of victimization and humiliation by the West, even though all over the world we see Arab and Arab-inspired violence and oppression. So we are dealing not only with Islam but with Arab ethnic pride.

[Solamente]

I think 20 years henceforth, we'll regret our use of precision, because it creates a standard that must be followed up with a "humanitarianization" of our military to be diluted in their true function, which is to achieve victory.

If we would have pounded the crap out of Iraq, and kept pounding, like we should have done with VietNam, things would have turned for the better. And to hell what the world thought, because the USA is THE world power, and must not squander it to appease the enemies of that fact.

Our military should be precise only to preserve itself.

I'm all fired up lately - Take me at the moment.

[AntiGuv]

"Arab-ness" is far, far more a matter of culture than it is a matter of race, and it is a cultural mode that has been superceded in many other places - just as it will be in the Arab world, within time.

[Steve_Seattle]

My point wasn't to quibble about the distinction between race and culture - I make no claims about genetic predispositions or anything of the sort - but to say that I think there is a distinct element of ethnic/racial pride that we are dealing with in Iraq, above and beyond the tenets of the Islamic religion.

[AntiGuv]

Oh, OK. We're basically saying the same thing just with slightly different words. I totally agree with what you posted.

[Eurotwit]

I agree.

But, my point is that the arab ethnic pride is cultural (and religious) and not genetic.

I guess the author then places me in the multiculturalist camp.

"While people from various regions of the world might differ in appearance, they do not differ innately in psychology or characteristic patterns of behavior. There is, therefore, no reason why any nation, anywhere, should not have constitutional government under representative democracy. To suggest otherwise is racist."

I fully support this statement. Well, there probably are some minor differences based on genetics, but not large enough to rule out the above statement.

I however disagree with the president when he mixes race (i.e. skin color) and islam (religion/culture) as if they where comparable constructs.

Islam as defined in a fundamentalist sense, is plainly not compatible with democracy and a free society as we know it.

I find it hard to distinguish cleanly between Islam and Arab culture since they are so closely intertwined.

note: I am no expert on the subject so bear with me.

The islamic religion was born as a product of arab culture, but also changed it. Then the Islamo-Arab culture spread during the early conquest and arabizised the conquered nations like Northern Africa and virtually extinguished the preexisting cultures. Turkey which happened later escaped much of the arabification process, as did Persia.

How can you distinguish arab ethnic pride from Islam?

[Dr. Scarpetta]

I wouldn't admit this to a Democrat, but I'm fed up with the whole situation. Why don't the people of Iraq get out there and help us? Hopefully, Pres. Bush won't lose the presidency because of it.

[Eurotwit]

It might yet be necessary to unleash the dogs.

It is up to Islamofasists.


BTW: You never answered my question a while back.

Cheers.

[Billthedrill]

I honestly don't think population genetics or race or other biological approaches are likely to correlate very closely with a predisposition to a certain type of government. Nor, for that matter, is something as broad as a common culture to be regarded as definitive - take, for example, the wide range of governments chosen by the ancient Greeks, who were much closer genetically and culturally than, say, the peoples of modern democracies such as the United States and Singapore. The Greeks had everything from outright democracy to autarchy to oligarchy to a well-oiled elective monarchy that was a police state. If there were a tendency working there I haven't the learning to find it.

Taking it from the other direction, we might remember that most areas of the world do not show much of a track record in representative government at all, which makes the past a poor predictor of the present. Judging by history Japan hadn't a chance, and look where they are today. Judging by history India would never be able to carry it off, but they have. To state that no Arab country has shown an ability to govern itself democratically is only to repeat the statements previously made about those countries, and draw conclusions that were, in their cases at least, demonstrably false.

[captain_dave]

What the Arabs need are disease and poverty.

Why is every people on the edge of the Arab world experiencing terrorism or war? It's because the Arabs do not wish to live in peace. They are dysfunctional and delusional. They are everything they accuse others of being.

Faluja Delenda Est.

[driftless]

It's sort of a strange situation given the numbers of democratic Arabs in the U.S. And Turkey has proven that Moslems can be democrats. Then why is it so hard for Islamic Arabs to be democrats?

A bigger problem for Mideast Arabs is if they fail to convert to peaceful forms of government. If the violence they do gets more out of control, western countries, even European ones, may have to resort to some very drastic solutions to protect themselves. Islamo-fascists actually are stepping out over a very steep precipice. If they go too far, the whole lot of them may end up being thrown into the pit. That is why the Iraqi experiment is so important. The consequences for the Arabs might be more dire than the ones for the west.

[gandalftb]

Given the nature of tribal conscience the most likely result will be a federation of ethnic provinces representing the Kurds, Arabs, and Persian/Shias. It is unlikely that the national army will be any more than a sort of NATO style mutual aid alliance. The best that will be achieved will be a common currency and free trade policies between the federations. A national tax/revenue system and tariff/foreign trade policies. Self determination will occur at a tribal level only not by the individual.

America will insist on a federal assembly so that Iraq can deal with us in one voice so that we can hold onto the military dominance in the region that we need to interdict the jihadist threats to come. The Canadian model will be the closest to a democracy that we can expect.