What's new

Huntington in Hindsight

muse

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 26, 2006
13,006
0
12,472
March 3, 2011
Huntington’s Clash Revisited
By DAVID BROOKS

Samuel Huntington was one of America’s greatest political scientists. In 1993, he published a sensational essay in Foreign Affairs called “The Clash of Civilizations?” The essay, which became a book, argued that the post-cold war would be marked by civilizational conflict.

Human beings, Huntington wrote, are divided along cultural lines — Western, Islamic, Hindu and so on. There is no universal civilization. Instead, there are these cultural blocks, each within its own distinct set of values.

The Islamic civilization, he wrote, is the most troublesome. People in the Arab world do not share the general suppositions of the Western world. Their primary attachment is to their religion, not to their nation-state. Their culture is inhospitable to certain liberal ideals, like pluralism, individualism and democracy.

Huntington correctly foresaw that the Arab strongman regimes were fragile and were threatened by the masses of unemployed young men. He thought these regimes could fall, but he did not believe that the nations would modernize in a Western direction. Amid the tumult of regime change, the rebels would selectively borrow tools from the West, but their borrowing would be refracted through their own beliefs. They would follow their own trajectory and not become more Western.

The Muslim world has bloody borders, he continued. There are wars and tensions where the Muslim world comes into conflict with other civilizations. Even if decrepit regimes fell, he suggested, there would still be a fundamental clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. The Western nations would do well to keep their distance from Muslim affairs. The more the two civilizations intermingle, the worse the tensions will be.

Huntington’s thesis set off a furious debate. But with the historic changes sweeping through the Arab world, it’s illuminating to go back and read his argument today.

In retrospect, I’d say that Huntington committed the Fundamental Attribution Error. That is, he ascribed to traits qualities that are actually determined by context.

He argued that people in Arab lands are intrinsically not nationalistic. He argued that they do not hunger for pluralism and democracy in the way these things are understood in the West. But it now appears as though they were simply living in circumstances that did not allow that patriotism or those spiritual hungers to come to the surface.

It now appears that people in these nations, like people in all nations, have multiple authentic selves. In some circumstances, one set of identities manifests itself, but when those circumstances change, other equally authentic identities and desires get activated.

For most of the past few decades, people in Arab nations were living under regimes that rule by fear. In these circumstances, most people shared the conspiracy mongering and the political passivity that these regimes encouraged. But when the fear lessened, and the opportunity for change arose, different aspirations were energized. Over the past weeks, we’ve seen Arab people ferociously attached to their national identities. We’ve seen them willing to risk their lives for pluralism, openness and democracy.

I’d say Huntington was also wrong in the way he defined culture.

In some ways, each of us is like every person on earth; in some ways, each of us is like the members of our culture and group; and, in some ways, each of us is unique. Huntington minimized the power of universal political values and exaggerated the influence of distinct cultural values. It’s easy to see why he did this. He was arguing against global elites who sometimes refuse to acknowledge the power of culture at all.

But it seems clear that many people in Arab nations do share a universal hunger for liberty. They feel the presence of universal human rights and feel insulted when they are not accorded them.

Culture is important, but underneath cultural differences there are these universal aspirations for dignity, for political systems that listen to, respond to and respect the will of the people.

Finally, I’d say Huntington misunderstood the nature of historical change
. In his book, he describes transformations that move along linear, projectable trajectories. But that’s not how things work in times of tumult. Instead, one person moves a step. Then the next person moves a step. Pretty soon, millions are caught up in a contagion, activating passions they had but dimly perceived just weeks before. They get swept up in momentums that have no central authority and that, nonetheless, exercise a sweeping influence on those caught up in their tides.

I write all this not to denigrate the great Huntington. He may still be proved right. The Arab world may modernize on its own separate path. But his mistakes illuminate useful truths: that all people share certain aspirations and that history is wide open. The tumult of events can transform the traits and qualities that seemed, even to great experts, etched in stone.




So, what's your take?:argh:
 
This ought to be a more interesting and insightful debate, so I will start it off.

Recently I was reading an article in a British newspaper which stated that Muslims in the last century have continuously been followers in all walks of life. The evidence for it from the writer was the lack of any beneficial input to the world at large and whatever Muslims did do, in terms of adapting, using or developing was taken from others. This is only referring to the last century and not the golden age which seems like a dream now.

Now the change that is occurring in the middle eastern countries will all be in vain because the purpose of the so called revolution will be lost when the people who led the revolution will not be able to draw a checklist of what they want and why this happened in the first place. This opens up space for the versatile and ultimately treacherous Islamic parties who actually have an indigenous ideology that they formed from the events that have taken place in Islamic history, more specifically the one that espouses the violent nature.

A couple of years from now, these revolutions will all be forgotten and things will either return to their old state or the countries will be devoured by Islamists. Going back to the article that I read, the writer stated offensively that Muslims do not have the nationalistic character which can create a beneficial democratic setup and they are better off under a dictatorship of sorts because of the general lack of direction found in the Muslim populace.

Democracy and its roots are a by product of western experiments that can only work in nations which do not have another ideology that will eventually clash with the way the system is being developed. Some Muslims call for Islam to be the system and once the clash starts between two differing parties, what you get is a mix of two systems that are incompatible rendering a nation unworkable.

Now I am not going to predict the future but I can surely tell you that not much will change in these countries and the reason for this is a lack of direction or unified idea of a system that is not only localized but also compatible with the world at large.
 
I've read Huntington's Clash of civilizations and I see no contradiction between Huntington's thesis and what is sweeping the middle east now.

This line from the article I think is accurate.

Amid the tumult of regime change, the rebels would selectively borrow tools from the West, but their borrowing would be refracted through their own beliefs. They would follow their own trajectory and not become more Western
 
Great post TFAZ, but - well, it seems so categorical, these suppositions you build on -- don't get wrong, I don't have a problem with categorical suppositions, just that in this case, they do not stand on or are not supported by solid foundations - WTF? - OK, lets look at these :

Democracy and its roots are a by product of western experiments that can only work in nations which do not have another ideology that will eventually clash with the way the system is being developed. Some Muslims call for Islam to be the system and once the clash starts between two differing parties, what you get is a mix of two systems that are incompatible rendering a nation unworkable
.

So in your opinion, this stuff we see is about "Democracy"?? Is that what the Tunisian vegetable vendor Muhammad Bou Azizi set himself on fire for? the sake of Democracy??

And look at the suggestion democracy and other systems --- is "Democracy" representative governance? is it a process a methodology? All of the above?
and this thing that you so readily concede to radicals, this thing called Islam (Izlum) has none of these??

And just one more point about this, with your permission - Which Islamicans have led the masses in this arab rebellion?? Who the heck was out there supporting AQ or the brotherhood or Imam this of that --- So perhaps we can be more precise, to the degree possible given what we have become aware of.

Sorry - but just one more point, I promise (at least in this post) The so called "golden age" -- What made it the Golden age? Was it the expansion of learning???? If yes, what then led to such openness towards learning???? Wasn't there Islam then???
 
So in your opinion, this stuff we see is about "Democracy"?? Is that what the Tunisian vegetable vendor Muhammad Bou Azizi set himself on fire for? the sake of Democracy??

The common assumption in the west and amongst people in general is that this 'revolution' is about democracy. Democracy gives people the power to decide and wrongfully many have come to the conclusion that when a number of people protest and/or overthrow a dictatorship, they want democracy to flourish within the country. There has been much written about how the people in the middle eastern nation want to decide what happens in their country, even in interviews, the word democracy comes up when a protester is being interviewed.

So in my opinion, all this going is not for democracy at all but at the end it will be made out as if it was for the sake of democracy leading to the situation becoming much more hostile. The west wants to see democracy, though they will make it a superficial one, it will at-least enable them to show that they are with the public and work for the people.

And look at the suggestion democracy and other systems --- is "Democracy" representative governance? is it a process a methodology? All of the above?
and this thing that you so readily concede to radicals, this thing called Islam (Izlum) has none of these??

To a muslim on a street, democracy is just a system, much like Islam is a system. A system of how a government functions that is, after all Islam has given everything required in this life according to some. They do not understand the concepts of these words and my comparison is based on the eventual clash that occurs, after all, anything like Islami Jamhooriyat does not make any sense now.

And just one more point about this, with your permission - Which Islamicans have led the masses in this arab rebellion?? Who the heck was out there supporting AQ or the brotherhood or Imam this of that --- So perhaps we can be more precise, to the degree possible given what we have become aware of.

They were not there, the Islamists, they have no input in this revolution but the situation created by these so called revolutions will provide them with a space to function as they want to. Let me give you an example, Gen Ayub Khan had banned the main religious parties like JI during his time but after his removal through protests, which were not led by Islamists but rather the common man. The religious parties were able to take advantage of the situation and in a few years time they were able to successfully coerce the government into meeting their demands.

This is an example of how a vacuum is created in post dictatorship periods where weak political parties give in to the demands of religious parties, no matter how ridiculous the demands might be. The only reason for this is that no one will question anything that has religious flavor attached to it, specifically in Muslim countries.

Sorry - but just one more point, I promise (at least in this post) The so called "golden age" -- What made it the Golden age? Was it the expansion of learning???? If yes, what then led to such openness towards learning???? Wasn't there Islam then???

This 'golden age' refers to a period where peace, harmony, prosperity and stability prevails. There were instances when things were not out of control and this can be attributed to the fact that the leaders of the time were able to successfully govern and also use religion in accordance to the times.

Such an environment will naturally allow a greater scope for learning which in turn will lead to development in the society itself.

Islam was these but so was the ability to understand and interpret it rightly.
 
To a muslim on a street, democracy is just a system, much like Islam is a system. A system of how a government functions that is, after all Islam has given everything required in this life according to some
.


Perhaps, you may now have reason to reconsider -- after all, are Egyptians, Tunisians, Yemenis, Bahraini, Oman, Algerian and these Iraqi below, not Muslims? -- We must attempt to be clear and more precise --- these people all know that Islam that is peddled by the ulema is BS, that's why you will notice, their real concerns find no expression in Islam-ISM - surely this has meaning, especially in the paradigm Huntington has built


Thousands of Iraqis defy curbs to protest

BAGHDAD: Thousands of protesters massed on Friday in cities and towns across Iraq after streaming in on foot in defiance of vehicle bans for rallies over corruption, unemployment and poor public services.

The peaceful demonstrations came after deadly nationwide protests in more than a dozen cities a week ago spurred Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to give his cabinet 100 days to shape up or face the sack.

On Friday, a crowd of about 2,000 people descended Baghdad’s Tahrir Square, another 1,000 gathered in the southern city of Nasiriyah and about 300 in the central city of Hilla. In the capital, the protesters, mostly men in their 20s and 30s, had been outnumbered by security forces as they walked along a street lined by humvees, and were frisked three times before reaching the square.

They chanted “Liar, Liar, Nuri al Maliki” and “Oil for the people, not for the thieves,” while carrying banners that read “Yes for democracy and the protection of freedom.” Riyadh Abdullah, a 39-year-old writer and activist, said he had walked for three hours to get to Tahrir Square from the city’s western neighbourhood of Mansur.

Similar demonstrations, also with several hundred protesters, took place in the holy city of Najaf and the port of Basra. Some 400 people demonstrated outside the town hall in Dujail, about 60 kilometres north of Baghdad. But elsewhere in Salaheddin province, including in Samarra, security forces thwarted planned protests. The Baghdad rally ended peacefully by mid-afternoon when the crowd frittered away, and security forces occupied the square
. afp
 
IMHO, Hutington's theory was always on fragile grounds all it had some powerful arguments. His analysis is more like the five blind men story(Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) which fails to see the big picture in his analysis although the facts presented were correct.

The Arab world in reality has been under foreign domination for almost a 100 years. After the Abassid dynasty was overrun by the Mongols and Turkic tribes, early 11th century, they have always been subordinate to either Persians in the east or the Turks/Ottomans in the west. Even independant kingdoms were under the tutelage of the Ottomans which would appoint Pashas as court advisors in this kingdoms. A serious attempt against Ottoman rule was made possible only after its weakening in WWI. You had the Al-Saud family from Najd which gathered tribes and established their own kingdom. But other than Saudi Arabia, almost all other Arab countries today were carved out by WWI victors which left their own people in charge. Beginning with the Cold War, the Americans on one hand and the Soviets on the other funded and supported their own allies in the ME but also around the world. And most of these were corrupt and ruthless dictators from countries as far apart as Chile and Panama to Phillipines in the East. Ofcourse these also fuled anti-Americanism and anti-Soviet feelings in the local populations as well.

With the fall of the USSR, and the coressponding understanding from the US that it need not intervene to prop dictators, there was an era of people's revolution in the 1990s. East europe had its revolutions, so did latin america and ofcourse south east asia were Indonesia, Phillipines and other countries moved towards representive govt.s

The people in the arab world would have followed a logical course here as well but military intervention in Iraq in1992 and then large scale invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq post 9/11 was a setback for the democracy movement to overthrow dictators. It allowed the dictators to strengthen their police states and the US instead of stopping its practice of supporting regimes like it did in Latin America and South East Asia continued its police in the Arab world. Had 9/11 not happened, we would have seen these protests 10 years ago as the Arab world had large majorities for more representative and democratic govt. Surveys done by various institutions show that even in conservative countries like Saudi Arabia, having a democratic govt. i.e. were there is a an elected parliament or shura who draw their mandate from the people is supported by majorities.

Finally, the most blatant flop of Hutington's thesis is the way Gaddafi has been exposed to not only be unpresentative of Arabs and Muslims but an outright opponent of Arab aspiration. In his book he has used Gaddafi's quote of how there is a coming conflict between the West and China and that in this fight Islam will fight alongside China against the US. Hutington took this as some sacrosanct message coming from an influential leader of the Arabs and Muslims which pertains to the future. In reality, it was a despot ruler who tried his best to channel the anger of the Arab people for lack of representative govt. by towards issues like American/Israeli agression and apocalyptic rhetoric of clash of civlisations. The way Gaddafi has fallen has exposed this misperception and would probably have forced Hutington to redo his book and thesis if he were still alive.
 
I'm persuaded that the Arab spring is not about so called "Democracy", at least not the way the Western press seeks to play it -- but see if the piec below has merit:


Tiger opportunity for Middle East
By Hossein Askari

It may be a number of years before historians have a good idea of the foundational reasons for the upheaval that we are witnessing in the Arab world. Depending on the country, at least three reasons are likely to be included in the final mix: political freedom and representative government, economic failure, and pervasive social and economic injustice. The popular focus has been on the first of these, with little detail afforded to the other two.

If they want to survive, governments in the Arab world and in Iran would do well to devote their energies to bringing economic prosperity and economic justice to their people, and quickly, because the oppressed citizenry has little patience for continued failure and excuses.

Although the oil-exporting countries of the Middle East and North Africa received several trillion dollars in oil and gas revenues over the 30-year period 1975-2005, their economic performance has been less than stellar.

For the major oil exporters where data is available (Algeria, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates), average annual real per capita gross domestic product growth rate was about zero; unlike "normal" countries where the year of the highest GDP per capita would be in a recent year, the year of the highest GDP per capita in these countries was during 1975-1980 when oil prices were at their highest level in real terms.

While a few got rich beyond their wildest dreams, the average citizen in these countries was more likely to have fallen into poverty; and yes, it is true that they have all prospered since 2005 and improved their conditions, though marginally for the average citizen.


The anomaly of higher per capita income some three decades earlier and the recent surge in income is simply a by-product of higher oil prices and thus higher oil revenues.

In sum, these countries have wasted much of their oil resources without building a growing economy that could offer plenty of good jobs, while rulers and a small circle around them have gotten rich, leading to an increasingly uneven income distribution. In the case of the other countries in the region, per capita income growth has been about normal, with a real per capita income growth of a little over 2% per year that is similar to the average performance of all developing countries
.

Why was economic performance in the oil-exporting countries so dismal and mediocre in the other countries of the region? The oil "curse" has had accomplices a plenty in the Middle East.

With vast oil revenues, the temptation to rob the citizenry has been irresistible for rulers, and the elite - the family and friends of the rulers, cronies, senior military and anyone who had even a remote opportunity to enrich themselves.

To differing degrees in all of these oil-exporting countries, the rulers:


i) have used oil revenues to buy short-run support for their regime with their citizenry through subsidies, handouts and other benefits;


ii) have bought the services of important players in the United States and Europe to back their rule;


iii) have wasted billions on imported arms to buy support in the US and Europe, arms that most likely would be used against their own people;


iv) have impeded the development of viable institutions, especially the rule of law that could check their plunder, and


v) have robbed their countries to an extent that may be turn out to be unparalleled in the history of man.

As the rulers impeded the development of effective institutions, they paid little notice to the fact that institutions are at the foundation of sustained economic development and growth, and in particular the development of a thriving private sector. Namely, without effective institutions it is difficult to nurture a thriving private sector as investors would face unreasonable risks.

Additionally, other supportive policies have not been in place, that is policies
to promote education;
to encourage economic diversification;
to promote non-oil exports;
to liberalize factor and goods markets;
to develop a viable financial sector;
to maintain consistent macroeconomic policies;
to build a fair and effective tax system that would generate revenues to replace oil revenues and afford the government with the means to address serious income inequities
.

Given these circumstances, it is understandable that a thriving private sector has not developed in any of these countries.

With the passage of time, average real incomes have not grown significantly, the percentage of those in poverty may have increased or at least has not declined, the disparity between the ruling class and the average citizen in these countries has grown to an extent that is shameful, especially when most of this wealth has come from corrupt practices associated with oil revenues, and there is little hope for a turnaround and a better future.

Under these conditions, economic injustice has become unbearable and is a major factor, in some cases the main factor, for the upheaval that we are witnessing in the Arab world today.

The implications of economic failure in the region are most visible and ominous in high unemployment. High unemployment, especially for those under the age of 30, has been the fuel and the spark for demonstrations. Slow economic growth and a dramatic shift in the age distribution of the population towards those under 30 are the two major economic issues for the region.

The share of those under 25 years of age in the total population of the region (about 45% under 15 years of age and 21% between 15 and 24 years of age) will be higher than that in any other region for at least the next two decades. Providing gainful employment 20-29 age group, is the most serious problem facing all the regimes in the region.

Years of corruption and plunder at the expense of rapid growth have come to roost; sub-par economic growth over decades and changes in age structure present these regimes with an unemployment problem that is unenviable for the foreseeable future. Depending on the country, the larger countries, major oil exporters (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Libya) and non-major oil exporters (Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia), have to grow for a number of years at levels they have never achieved before - depending on the country in the range of 8-12% per year.

What can they do? The oil exporters should without delay re-orient the role of oil in their economies. In all these countries, depletable or exhaustible resources belong the state and are, in turn, the birthright of current and future generations. The state has the responsibility to preserve equal benefits from all exhaustible resources for all generations.

Economists have long recognized the special characteristics of exhaustible resources; they are a part of society's stock of capital and their depletion should not be used to finance consumption. Instead, commensurate capital of another form should replace the depletion of exhaustible resources for the benefit of current and future generations.

In the case of Islamic communities, this must be done in such a way that all citizens - current and future generations - benefit equally; just as we should consider ourselves stewards of our environment so that those who follow us can enjoy the same, so should we also take care of exhaustible resources for the equal benefit of all generations.

Broadly speaking, oil revenues should not finance consumption, public or private. If the oil is used to finance consumption, then eventually the country's economy will fall off the cliff when oil runs out, that is, with a GDP of zero.

Using oil revenues to finance consumption is detrimental, but what about building infrastructure and developing industries to provide jobs now and in the future? If a government selects infrastructure projects and industries to develop, will they be the most needed ones? Won't those who get construction contracts benefit more from oil funds than the rest of the citizenry? And if all revenues are used now, will future generations receive their fair share of benefits from oil depletion?

There is only one efficient and just way to manage oil depletion and its associated revenues - wean the government from oil revenues over a period of say 10 years (a period of time to develop an efficient and equitable tax system to provide revenues for the government), and place oil revenues into a well-managed sovereign wealth fund and give an equal real payout directly to each citizen, today and for all time.

The management of such a fund must be transparent and outside of the personal control of the rulers and must be designed to afford appropriate incentives to individuals to live productive lives and to contribute to economic and social prosperity.

This may sound like a difficult task, but it is not. The real payout could be readily calculated and updated, as a moving average, to reflect changes in the oil and gas markets and population. Such an approach would reduce wasteful government expenditures, be they subsidies or military expenditures. These could no longer be financed by easy money. Individuals would be in a position to spend their money as they wished, thus this would be the most efficient way to transfer benefits to the citizenry, as done partially in Alaska.

The government would be forced to become more efficient and accountable because it would have to rely on taxes for revenues, as do most countries. Rulers and their cronies would lose access to oil revenues and would have to find productive work instead of corrupt rent-seeking activities that impede the development of good institutions, a pre-requisite for sustainable private sector growth.

If these major oil exporters want to re-orient their economies, then such a fundamental turnaround is the best way forward. It would show the citizenry that they are willing to truly reform, share the wealth of the country equitably, address corruption, and establish a system that would provide financial support equitably to all while supporting a private sector that could create badly needed employment opportunities.

Such an approach is not only just, but it also may enable these regimes to avoid bloodshed and have a fighting chance to provide economic prosperity, gainful employment and sustainable growth for their citizenry.

The oil exporters and the other countries in the region should at the same time adopt policies to stimulate a thriving private sector; this, as has been outlined above, will first and foremost require good institutions, accompanied by high-quality education for all, policies to liberalize trade and goods and factor markets, establishing a supportive financial sector and adopting consistent macroeconomic policies.

If rulers in the Middle East and North Africa are not blind to the writing on the wall - "change drastically now or be swept aside" - there is a window of hope. The oil exporters can turn into the "oil tigers", rapidly growing oil-exporting countries, as contrasted with what they have been, the "oil snails".

In short, while political reform is long over due for the region, don't forget economic reform. Political reform must go hand-in-hand with fundamental economic reform to restore justice, peace and hope to the Middle East and North Africa. And if they do, the world may witness the birth of the first oil tige
r.


Hossein Askari is Professor of International Business and International Affairs at the George Washington University. He is co-author of The Stability of Islamic Finance (John Wiley and Sons, 2010), with a foreword by Sir Andrew Crockett.
 
@muse

On the contrary, this movement lead by the youth is entirely about political rights and democarcy IMO. The Arab world has a middle HDI and all of them even have mid-level per capita income (except Yemen). So the economy is only secondary. Surveys after surveys have shown that the Arab youth have been yearning for political rights and true democracy in the past decade. However, events like the Iraq war and basically the global WoT climate allowed this sentiment to be supressed under one pretext or another.

Check out this survey done in 2009 and you can pretty much say that these revolutions for democracy was inevitable. Afterall, most of the ideas of democracy i.e. rule by consultation or shura is advocated by quoting the Quran by pro-democracy activists. And almost all Arab countries have now formed some sort of parliament as well. It was only natural to demand a proper and full representative govt. as the next step.

99% of Arab youths prioritise democracy - survey - Culture & Society - ArabianBusiness.com
Living in a democratic country is the single most important priority for 99 percent of Arab youths in the Middle East, according to the results of a new survey released on Sunday.

In the UAE, 96 percent of respondents to the Second ASDA’A Burson-Marsteller Arab Youth Survey answered that they considered living in a democratic country to be ‘very important or ‘somewhat important’ to them. [ Click here to view the key findings of the Arab Youth Survey ]

Youths surveyed in Kuwait were most concerned about democracy, with 99 percent placing answering that it was their biggest concern out of a list of 16 major topics.

This was followed by Egypt (98 percent), Lebanon (95 percent), Bahrain (92 percent), Saudi Arabia (90 percent), Qatar (88 percent) and Jordan (87 percent).

Omani youths proved to be the most ambivalent of the survey group, with only 85 percent placing democracy at the top of their list of concerns.

The survey was carried out in October last year and involved face-to-face interviews with 2,000 Arab youths aged 18 to 24 years old in nine countries.
 
Ejaz

Thank you for your post, below is a piece by , well, you will recognize him:


Arab spring in South Asia?

Aijaz Zaka Syed
Sunday, March 06, 2011


The Arab spring continues to wow the world. If it has the corrupt and powerful everywhere terrified out of their wits, it also has revived the long repressed spirit of the oppressed, far beyond the greater Middle East.

Until the beginning of this year, few in the distant lands of America, India, China and the Far East would have heard of Hosni Mubarak or confidently pick out Tunis on the world map. All that has changed. Forever. The Tunisian-Egyptian burst of hope has not just given birth to a magical season of change across the Arab world, it’s inspiring imitation elsewhere.

All this must come as a wake-up call to those asleep at the wheel everywhere. Apparently, what happens and goes around the other side of the globe comes around sooner or later to catch up with your reality wherever you are. So at the height of the Tahrir Square excitement, it was curiously uplifting to hear a fellow Indian demand an “Arab revolution in India” on the BBC Hindi’s India Bol (Speak up India) program. At first it sounded rather absurd. An Egypt-style people’s revolt in India? Nah!

After all, India is not a , decaying Arab police state where leaders come to stay and rule forever. We are a vibrant and thriving democracy – the world’s largest and most colourful. Comparisons with the Middle East are therefore odious. But are they really?

The young and restless who drove Ben Ali and Mubarak out of their once impregnable fortresses were not just protesting their long years of absolute power. Those demonstrations were also a call to arms against the corruption and nepotism, against injustice and inequality, and against the abuse of power and misrule that characterised the so-called Arab republics all these years. They were a protest against incompetence, red tape and poverty and against all the missed opportunities that have stultified and sapped the youth and stolen their promise and hope. Sounds familiar?

India is an amazing democracy of which we are justifiably proud. But the ills plaguing stagnant Arab societies have also been gnawing at the vitals of Indian society for so long that we do not even pay attention to them anymore. In fact, this is not just confined to India. It’s the same story all over South Asia.

From India and Pakistan to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, politics is the same all over the subcontinent. Widespread and institutionalised plundering of state resources by politicians is the order of the day. While the rich get richer and our mediocre politicians turn billionaires in office in no time, for ordinary people it’s a daily grind, a constant battle to survive the crushing poverty. Dynastic politics is another feature that is common between the Arab republics and South Asia.

Take a look. There are so many Gamal Mubaraks around. In fact, dynastic succession has become so de rigueur in South Asian politics that no eyebrows are raised when the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has to jump through hoops to accommodate the whims and fancies of every son and daughter of ally and Tamil Nadu chief minister M Karunanidhi.

Sonia and Rahul Gandhi are the only smiling – and not so bad – faces of the dynastic politics. And yes Rahul is yet to take charge. India has seen worse – in Rahul’s uncle Sanjay Gandhi. In fact, the son rises in every political party in the subcontinent and almost every politician in this Turkish bath is without a stitch on.

Like much of the Arab world, criminal mismanagement of resources, red tape and crony capitalism – or socialism in some cases – have ensured that even as we trumpet our fabled economic progress into the 21st century, much of our population survives on less than $2 dollar a day.

Last year, the Indians – and the world – were shocked when a UN global poverty index devised by the Oxford University discovered there are more poor people in eight Indian states than in the 26 nations of sub-Saharan Africa put together. India ranked 63rd, just after Togo, and before Haiti.


A staggering 410 million people, far more than the population of the United States, in the country seen as one of the two emerging superpowers live in extreme poverty. The economic liberalisation of the 1990s and selective prosperity that followed has only deepened the socio-economic inequalities. No wonder India is home to a violent Marxist insurgency, biggest in the world, that The New York Times some time back described as being a bigger threat to India’s security than international terrorism.

Things are a little different in the rest of South Asia. All-pervasive corruption, extreme economic inequalities, a breakdown of institutions and denial of basics like food, water, healthcare and education etc., have been the bane of the entire region.

While India has been rocked by some of the biggest corruption scandals in history in the past few years, under Mr Clean Dr Singh of course, with Mr Ten Per cent taking over the reins of the Islamic Republic next door, the culture of sleaze has acquired a new meaning and taken to a new level altogether.

So there’s every possibility and compelling need for an Arab spring in South Asia. Especially when like those marching on the Arab street, India and Pakistan are home to a large young population that is getting increasingly impatient for change. The young are not just restless; they are also informed and know their rights. And they know how to use the power of new technology and new social tools to get what they want. Having seen the Net magic in action in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere, it wouldn’t be long before they decide to take charge of their destiny. Especially, when their leaders are so incompetent and clueless.

Given the average age of politicians in our part of the world, is it any wonder they are so hopelessly out of touch with the reality of the 21st century and its young? If anyone watched Manmohan Singh’s recent press conference on national TV would know what I am talking about. I felt almost sorry for Dr Singh as he pathetically pottered his way around the carefully chosen questions posed by carefully chosen journalists. Here’s a man who is not just resting on his laurels but he has gone to sleep on them.

And it’s not just the prime minister. Every political party on the left, right, and centre boasts leaders who belong in retirement homes. It’s even worse when it comes to regional players. Most political parties have ended up as personal fiefdoms of their leaders. Power is family business and remains in the family.

Karunanidhi, the permanently wheelchair-bound Tamil Nadu CM, cannot move an inch without the help of his family and aides but cling on he must to his chair. Surely, a nation of a billion plus people deserves better. So does Pakistan and so do other nations in the region. This is why, given the bankruptcy of politics in the region, don’t be surprised if we see an Arab spring in South Asia soon. Possibilities for a brave new world are endless.


The writer is based in Dubai and has written extensively on the Middle East and South Asia. Email: aijaz.syed@hotmail. com


See, Ejaz, what I am pointing to and there is another article "Democracy is not enough" is that it's not enough that I can vent, that's not what the protests are about - the protest is about wanting their reality, their experience of daily life of government, to be not as surreal, as awful as it is -- it's not a demand that there should be "democracy" ala Europe or US but rather that these people are CITIZENS, that they are in charge, not these rent collectors and that they mean to be treated with respect and they mean to get what they are paying for
 
Yes Aijaz Zaka makes some good points. Interestingly he is also from Hyderabad like me.

But the I would disagree with the possibility of "revolutions" happening in S. Asia. Or at least in countries that have a democratic process. Most S. Asian countries have a regular process of elections and the people have a stake in choosing their representatives.

Taking just the example of India, the Chief Ministers and PMs are not self-appointed dictators. And even if they are from a particular family, they have to stand for election and get the mandate of the people. Then you have a strong opposition and free media that keeps the govt. accountable. Its not perfect but as time goes by it keeps improving.

The only revolution is for voters to make a judicious use of their voting ability every five years to overthrow the current "rulers" and elect new ones.

For example the RTI act introduced by the UAP-I govt. was a sea change and allowed common people to direct look into the functioning of the govt. and check corruption. But even autocratic societies in the Arab world or even in Central Asia, no one would know about the corruption happening except for rumors and possible international news outlets. The total control that autocratic govt.s have over the control over the life of their citizens particularly about choosing their own representatives to govt. is stifling and is not sustainable.
 
Taking just the example of India, the Chief Ministers and PMs are not self-appointed dictators. And even if they are from a particular family, they have to stand for election and get the mandate of the people. Then you have a strong opposition and free media that keeps the govt. accountable.


Kya kar layrain, uno bol kay bolay:

Pleeeze, girl friend --- strong opposition and media keeping the govt accountable??

Anyway, the point you seem adamant about ignoring is that the Arab spring (with the exception of Libya-thus far) is about the lack of lives of dignity, that's why the Sodies had to bribe their own populace, not the word Citizens has not been used, because it does not apply.
 
huntington's views have a heavy orientalist slant, borrowing heavily from super orientalist bernard lewis, dwelling too much on these outdated views of what arabs and "the other" are like is not meaningful today.

however, what i take away from huntington more than anything is that basically the west need to be worried about the relationship between china and the islamic (arab) world - whether there is democracy in the ME, whether there are bikini clad women walking on the streets of riyadh and whether gays rule the arab world is not what huntington cares about, this is just background noise - its what shape will the world have and will america be on top? - this is the bottom line.
 
oh and i should add, based on the above huntington's thesis is still valid, the perception in the western world is that its the west vs Confucianism and islam - not by the chinese and muslims - but by the west, they have created and framed this fight.
 

Dealing with the Muslim World: Five Western Mistakes

By Kishore Mahbubani | Wednesday, March 09, 2005


There is no coherent long-term Western or American plan to help the Islamic world. Instead, the many confusing and conflicting strands of Western and American policies continue to destabilize the Islamic world, argues Kishore Mahbubani, former ambassador of Singapore and author of “Beyond the Age of Innocence.”

We will spend the most part of the 21st century handling the many problems generated by America's, and the West's, confusing and conflicting policies to deal with the Islamic world.


Strategic mistakes


The first strategic mistake made by the West was to assume that its long-term interests were best served by a world in which Islamic states were mired in poverty and backwardness.


The West made a strategic mistake to not see the huge importance of encouraging the success of Muslim moderates in Islamic societies in time.





The second strategic mistake, which flowed from the first, was a policy — never articulated, perhaps never conscious, but nevertheless very real — not to share the successful policies of modernization with the Islamic world.


The United States had a Marshall Plan to develop Europe after World War II — even a plan to develop Japan.


What about Islam?


The obvious question is why no such grand plan was devised for the Islamic world — or even for a few Islamic societies.


Was it a result of pure ignorance of the need for one — or of a calculation that the Islamic world was better off non-modernized? Historians will probably debate this for centuries. I have no doubt that Western and Islamic historians will reach opposite conclusions.


Even the successful failed


A third strategic mistake was to not see the huge importance of encouraging the success of Muslim moderates in Islamic societies.


In Europe, a quiet consensus developed that an underdeveloped Islamic world would pose a lesser threat to Europe than a successful Islamic world. We now know the opposite is true.






Many bright Western-educated Muslim minds are troubled by the poverty and backwardness of the Islamic world. And they do not subscribe to the radical agenda of Osama bin Laden.


Many of these Muslim moderates want their societies to be economically and politically compatible with the West, while remaining in social and spiritual terms true to their Islamic heritage.


In short, they want to trigger both the equivalent of a renaissance and a rationalist enlightened movement in the Islamic world. They would make ideal partners of the West. But the West has not helped them. Instead, the West has in recent decades helped those who suppress them.


Modernity lacking funds


The fourth strategic mistake of the West was not to consciously promote the spread of modern secular education in Islamic societies.


Instead, the West looked away — or even quietly winked approval — when $300 million per year of private Saudi money went into establishing Wahabi-influenced madrassahs, which fostered medieval fundamentalism, not modernity.


Shift in education


These madrassahs, quietly established in states that had supported the West in the Cold War, like Pakistan and Indonesia, have provided a ready pool of recruits for Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and its affiliates.


Instead, the West has in recent decades helped those who suppress them.





It takes an enormous effort to take a mind already steeped in 10 years of Wahabi education and re-educate it in the ways of the Modern world.


The fifth strategic mistake made by the West was to implement economic policies that brought short-term electoral benefits to the democratically elected leaders in Western societies — but came at the expense of long-term damage to Islamic societies.


Seeking for help


Any number of examples prove the point. Take one. After 9/11, President Musharraf and his country, Pakistan, immediately became key allies in the battle against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Not long after 9/11, he came to Washington, D.C. — to seal this strategic partnership and friendship.


To survive politically at home against the Islamic extremist parties, Musharraf — like a good Western politician — had to deliver economic benefits. He sought only economic concessions from America, primarily a bigger textile quota to get more jobs in Pakistan.


The America that says “no”


America turned him down. The few voters of North Carolina who were textile workers were more important than the larger national interest of America in helping Musharaff survive politically.


The U.S. had the Marshall Plan after World War II — even a plan to develop Japan. Why is there no such plan devised for the Islamic world?





What about the role of Europe in the failure to share the fruits of modernization with the Islamic world? Unlike America, Europe does not sit an ocean away from the Islamic world.


A small sea, the Mediterranean, separates Europe from North Africa. Thousands of Africans — including North African Arabs — have begun crossing it illegally to get into Europe. Hence the current European paranoia about immigrants.


Neighbors should help


But in all this hysteria, there is little attempt by Europe to understand what it may have done to instigate this trickle, which by the end of this century will become a flood — unless Europe decides to deliver the obvious solution. They need to export a successful model of development to an Islamic country, better still, to a group of Islamic countries.


It would be virtually impossible to find documentary proof that Europe made a strategic decision not to share its success with the Islamic world.


No proof


The decision may not even have been conscious. Many such decisions are the product of visceral reflexes of Europeans towards Islam.


The West looked away when private Saudi money went into establishing Wahabi-influenced madrassahs, which fostered medieval fundamentalism, not modernity.





Nor can I prove that the Europeans watched with smug satisfaction as one Islamic society after another failed to modernize either in the 19th or 20th centuries — long after Europe had begun its steep upward climb — with the smugness redoubling as their former Islamic colonies stumbled rather than move forward after decolonization.


None of this was ever expressed.


It would have been politically impolite to do so. But among policymakers, a quiet consensus developed that Europe would be better off with a struggling and underdeveloped Islamic world. They assumed it would pose a lesser threat to Europe than a successful Islamic world. We now know that the opposite is true.


From "Beyond the Age of Innocence: Rebuilding Trust Between America and the World" by Kishore Mahbubani © Copyright 2005. Reprinted by arrangement with PublicAffairs, a member of the Perseus Books Group.[/QUOTE]
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom