But: No – the similarities are both indicative and yet superficial. In 2011 there is no common controlling authority being challenged, no superpower tottering, just local dictators. There is no ideology from the top, only the smokesceen of Islam veiling oldfashioned despotism and an unimaginable greed. Unlike Eastern Europe, the Arab world seems to have had few movements living a secret organized life aiming for change. There has been systematic oppression, suffering and still somehow the bare survival of ordinary people. But there was never an overt justification of Muslim misery the way the Marxist-Leninist ideology was used to justify the oppression and low lifestyle of the Communist world.
Then there is the material wealth, above all the oil and gas, available to many of the rebelling peoples in 2011. In Soviet-controlled Europe there were no riches to be redistributed. In the Middle East and North Africa, the worst crime of despotic leaders has been the theft of national wealth in the face of the abject poverty of their subjects. As the spirit of rebellion awoke, the image of a better future is a strong stimulus that has no comparison in Eastern Europe of 1989. True, the East Europeans also expected a better material future, but the riches they imagined were not as concrete and massive as those of (e.g.) Algerians or Libyans.
An open question is still whether the follow-up in the Middle East and North Africa is likely to be as successful as that in Eastern Europe (which admittedly has its downsides even two decades later). Obviously in 2011 “democracy” of some sort is a goal, however inchoate, but it has no historical reference very close to the experience of North African or Middle Eastern societies. Autocracy is the more familiar model, and (as Hillary Clinton just said), the West does not have all the answers. We may be facing a future of some kind of modified "auto-demo-cracy" emerging, more akin to the various Asian regimes in existence today.
An open question is still whether the follow-up in the Middle East and North Africa is likely to be as successful as that in Eastern Europe (which admittedly has its downsides even two decades later). Obviously in 2011 “democracy” of some sort is a goal, however inchoate, but it has no historical reference very close to the experience of North African or Middle Eastern societies. Autocracy is the more familiar model, and (as Hillary Clinton just said), the West does not have all the answers. We may be facing a future of some kind of modified "auto-demo-cracy" emerging, more akin to the various Asian regimes in existence today.
The thought keeps coming back to me that I have no good answer to the charge that a people gets the government it deserves. If a people finds itself living under a despot, that is as good as deciding to do so; it is their choice. Some have called me heartless for that view. Yet the world is cruel, and we can only at our own peril ask others to meddle in our affairs to impose their sense of what is right.
NOTE: To comment, please make sure to click on "anonymous" before you click "publish".
NOTE: To comment, please make sure to click on "anonymous" before you click "publish".
5 comments:
COMMENTS RECEIVED VIA E-MAIL AND ANSWERED BELOW
Gene CL: Pretty interesting world, huh? So, how you going to react when we [the US] are the only country willing to enforce a no fly zone? (BTW, I think hell will freeze over before we do that, though, but who knows?)
Olav F. Knudsen: No-fly zones enforced by the US? Knowing the UN, no decision is likely to come out of there. The Arab League is considering it, but how could they enforce it? Failing these options and seeing the situation getting worse, the US (along with the UK if they line up) should be welcomed as enforcer of a no-fly zone over Libya.
Gene CL: Given the world's reactions to everything else we do and given Obama's penchant for having no idea what to do, I can't imagine our going into Libya, which is probalby the reason we will be fighting there by the end of the week. There is no doubt in my mind the Europeans will do absolutely nothing. But my big question is how bad will the world's oil supply be hurt and for how long and what will be the long term consequences of all this? Our great love of democracies could end ours.
Olav F. Knudsen: The oil supply will be hurt, but don't forget the West was without Libyan oil for many years until 2003/2004. Other producers seem ready to pick up the shortfall without too much trouble. Long term consequences? Too many great unknowns there for me, I'm afraid.
COMMENTS RECEIVED VIA E-MAIL AND ANSWERED HERE:
Bob WD said:
Olav, interesting thoughts. I have one observation and one question. First, the political culture and historical experience of (at least some) of the east European countries, and the proximity, inspiration, and tutelage of the “West” set the stage for and created (relative to the middle east) the conditions for democracy, however imperfect it has turned out in some countries. It is impossible for me to see an equivalent development in the middle eastern countries, given the more “primitive” political cultures. In addition, (as I think Seymour Martin Lipset demonstrated “empirically” way back in the 1950’s) there is at least some correlation between average, real personal, distributed income levels and democracy. Second, do the uprisings in the middle east signal the “beginning of the end” in Iran – what do you think history will say about that?
Olav F. Knudsen: Good points. Your observation brings out the importance of model societies and model lifestyles for those who want change. The populations (or at least the elites) of East European countries regarded themselves as already part of the European tradition whereas in the Muslim / Arab world there was/is no such widespread feeling of affinity with the democratic West. Turkey, the non-Arab outlier of the Muslim world is a different matter, though even there I believe there is a deep internal split regarding models. - Democracy requiring a moderate distribution of income is not supported by the case of India. The Iran question is certainly one of the big underlying ones - you may be right about the trend.
Bob WD: I take your point on India – and there are probably other exceptions to the “Lipset Rule.” But, certainly, on a global scale Lipset was right in the sense that individual personal income is highly correlated with democracy and is, effectivey, a precondition. Do you remember the Lipset work? It was one of the five or ten books that really impressed me and whose thesis continues to impress.
Olav F. Knudsen: Lipset did impressive work on the preconditions for democracy, I certainly remember his book Political Man (1960) – in 1992 he updated his argument (see his Presidential Address to the American Political Science Association). In general I buy his emphasis on economic development and income distribution; India may be the exception to prove the rule.
What about the emerging Kurdistan, the northern part of Iraq - which has some promising developments? (I am no expert on this but have been told etc...)
Perhaps a non-Western democratic model will be a better option for these countries? Making relevant the question "what is democracy"-.
That people get the government they deserve: often the repressive power is too strong, the poverty as well, and there is a lack of the cultural basis for western type democracy etc. What is needed is some catalyst that sets persons with some extra resources moving. Like what happens now.
Yes, I agree that this is a key question. I am not familiar with the recent Kurdistani developments you refer to. But in principle, a non-Western democratic model would in my view have to be one that allowed popular expressions of sentiment to be channeled into the governing system in an orderly manner, and that could reliably call rulers to account for their actions without unduly undermining their authority. A western-type democratic government does that through free, secret balloting under strict procedural control at regular intervals, with political groups allowed to compete for votes on an equal basis, etc as required in standard Western constitutional systems. Traditional Arab rulers routinely use a system of listening to ordinary people's complaints in long sessions of audiences, taking up a considerable amount of their time. Similar systems to let off steam are known all over the non-democratic world. It is the move from that idea to the possibility of placing the power position at risk that represents the big difference between the Western and non-Wstern systems. Conceivably this could be done in other ways the regular elections - I'd really like to hear some suggestions.
A PS on whether people deserve the government they get, which perhaps was not precisely put. My essential point is that for a rebel group to ask for outside intervention - or for an outside power to consider intervening for regime change in a country with an oppressive government - is the wrong way to go. A people has to change its government by its own devices if it wants a legitimate outcome. This is very much about "practical sovereignty".
Post a Comment