My voice
in Braveheart’s thread “A Kinder USA” there is a statement from a State Official at the bottom of the article which i felt is very pertinent.
“Too often across this region, the groups that are well-organized are the radical Islamist groups, in part because the religious outlet has been the only acceptable outlet for dissent”
If Royals fall, these fanatics are the organized groups. i really think that there should be pressure to slowly introduce reforms into their political system which will allow political parties to form, and grow. Otherwise you will have the situation of Khomeini’s revolution in Iran..instead of a totalitarian monarchy u have Taliban Juniors in power. Not good for us, not good for their region or for their people.
Fraudia:
I don't disagree with your assessment as to who are the organized dissenting groups and/or the dangers they represent.
You write:
"I really think that there should be pressure to slowly introduce reforms into their political system which will allow political parties to form, and grow. Otherwise you will have the situation of Khomeini's revolution in Iran..instead of a totalitarian monarchy u have Taliban Juniors in power. Not good for us, not good for their region or for their people."
I frankly don't think we can exert enough "pressure" to cause the Royals to reform as you suggest. At least, not within a time frame that would meet with the aspirations of the Saudi people. In propping up the Saudi Royals, we are perceived as being anti-reform and anti-freedom by the people and are hated for it. Ultimately, the people will win and the royals will lose and I'd rather be viewed benignly by the people when they celebrate their victory.
Further, regardless of the pain caused to the US and its foreign policy by the Khomeini revolution, I'm not convinced that the Iranian people are worse off for it. Sometimes you've just got to let natural events play out their course. The democratic movement that is emerging in Iran is more likely, in my opinion, to prevail and last because it has emerged naturally and without someone like the US butting in. Eventually, the Iranians will be much better off than they were under the Shah and how they are under clerical governance.
my voice
I have been a proponent of having these sort of things grow slowly and organically. The concern is that would the other forces allow this organic development of a true democracy to continue or should graossroot level reforms and developments start now so the democratic movement grows in the right direction.
It would be out of the frying pan into the fire..sure..and as you suggest that eventually things will improve.. I am concerned of how long will the people be in this fire after getting out of the frying pan. How would these regimes effect other countries in the region and for an increasingly smaller world..their perceived enemies.
Simply put, could the world afford to wait for and during these countries go through their trials and find the right government structure. And if extremist forces do take over..would we be better off than we are today.
It is a catch 22, if we do not intervene, these extremist groups will find recruiots upset at us for supporitng their royals, if we do intervene, people will be upset at the interference...eventually I think we need to do what is in our best interests as well as the interests of the world, as well as the citzens of those countries. It may not be popular..not with the royals..because they would see us as a threat to their personal pigyy bank..for these religious-poltical power brokers who will know that this creates severe cracks in the foundation of theirr political might, but in the end, the good ppl win, on all sides of the equation. How it will be donw or could be done..well hmm if I was working for the state dept I could prolly come up with ideas, but right now I am just an armchair analyst :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
but right now I am just an armchair analyst :)
[/QUOTE]
Me too, except my chair has no arms. :)
Mind you, this is discussion and not disagreement. It is sometimes so friggin hard to determine what is the frying pan and what is the fire. I have always questioned that old saying: "better the devil you know than the devil you don't."
I have a tendency to believe that it is easier and wiser most of the time to be on the side of the insurgent/liberator rather than the present regime/oppressor. When people live in oppression and misery, they just know that they don't like what they have. Once they are rid of it, there is a period of celebration and contentment. A sense of achievement, if you will. And they treat most kindly the people who helped them achieve their liberation.
Of course, this can change very quickly if things don't improve and/or if things get a lot worse. I suppose if you are widely viewed as a friend because you helped or supported the liberation, you should have more influence with the victorious side to do the right things to actually improve things. You have no chance of helping the victorious side do the right thing if you opposed them.
In my eyes, promoting freedom and the establishment of a governmental authority that relies upon the consent of the majority of the governed can't ever be the wrong side to be on. That is the side that will ultimately prevail.
The problem in SA, as you point out, is that the organized opposition is not really interested in freedom and governing in accordance with the consent of the majority. They are more interested in installing their own brand of oppression. Perhaps our goal ought to be to strengthen some third group that does promote the ideals we want. That's a bit of a tricky thing to do without tipping the scales to either of the devils we know of now.
I know this is discussion and not disagreement, and even if it was disagreement we learn others perspectives and question our own.
Great post, I have a meeting now but once I get out I will respond. in short your last paragraph is right on the mark..but there are some issues I want to throw in the mix here.
Hi guys,
The problem with the "Organic" solution is that there is no history or basis for democracy in the Arab world. It is the land of the stongman leader. There are surrounding countries like Qatar and Baharain that are experimenting with "democracy", but a very watered down version at best.
The ultimate irony has been pointed out in another thread, that democracy is very much in keeping with the moral stance of Islam. So how this decoupling between teaching and leadership happens is a bit of a puzzle to me.
The Palestinian issue is the one that preoccupies the Arab world, and I think it is with good reason. The vision of Saudi's dumping tables of gold jewelry at a telethon on behalf of the Palestinians simply keeps the fire of the Palestinian cause on the front burner. Imagine for a minute that there was peace and harmony with the Jews. What would the young people of the Arab nations begin to protest against? I think the pent up energy that is channeled into the hatred of Israel would quickly turn on the totalitarian regimes in the Gulf, if they were not offered the "distraction" of Palestine. The demographics of much of the Arab world is very young. It is the young people in Iran who are constntly pressing for greater Democracy. If you read about the effects on Saudi Arabia, it literally means the peak of a population explosion will happen coincidentally with the oil depleting out of the ground! Watch out for the Wahabi's then!
OhioGuy:
Welcome home. :)
I am not sure that "freedom" combined with obtaining the "consent of the governed" is necessarily coextensive with establishment of democratic institutions in the sense I think you mean.
In Afghanistan, for instance, the Loya Jirga seems to be a process which meets with the consent of the majority of people. There would seem to be nothing inconsistent with a government selected via Loya Jirga and freedom of the people.
I suppose that people could also consent to a royal monarchy as well. Imagine a referrendum every ten years to decide whether the monarchy should stay in effect.
I don't think the goal ought to be democracy as we know it in western cultures so much as freedom and consent.
I'm not sure how this could really work in practice but theoretically is it not possible??
my voice you said
"Perhaps our goal ought to be to strengthen some third group that does promote the ideals we want."
I agree a 100%, although to some that group would always be considered a "puppet group" whether that is the case or not. the people who say that do not see that by that terms US govt itself is a puppet govt of fortune 500 :)
another statement was
"I don't think the goal ought to be democracy as we know it in western cultures so much as freedom and consent. "
I agree with this, with a catch though. As long as the system meets the people's need for freedom and representation, however it must be a good system too. As I type my statement sounds like I am proposing that people be saved from themselves..but just as you used Loya Jirga as an example of a good way to do things..I will give you a bad example..the tribal councils in tribal and rural areas of Pakistan..AKA Panchayaat...now not all of them are bad, but we have seen the sheer lunacy of their actions just recently..and btw its not the first time something idiotic has been done by these Panchayats.
So the system should offer freedom and representation but with checkpoints as well. So the model cant be too far off from what US has or UK, or France...sadlyvwith my own experience looking at politicians in Pakistan..it just seems liek soem people are just not ready for somethings. How do you get there...man if I knew I would publish a whitepaper
Fraudia:
Good comments. As to the "puppet" government, if the US only played a peripheral role in support of a new government and certain Muslim nations took the lead role in promoting and supporting change, I think this danger could be reduced. I can particularly think of constructive roles that maybe Turkey or Indonesia could play. It seems to me that whenever a non-Muslim country (particularly the US) is deemed to interfere in a Muslim nation's internal affairs, Muslims adopt this "all Muslims are brothers routine" and resist the interference, whether the "interference" is constructive or not. Muslim nations are much freer to criticize other Muslim nations and probably can play a much more constructive role in promoting change than the US can. The US should become much closer allies with the moderate and democratic leaning Muslim countries and promise to assist and support them in their efforts to promote change. We need to be in the back seat so to speak and let Muslim nations drive. Not as a cab driver mind you but as the pilot.
I didn't necessarily mean to suggest that the Loya Jirga is an example of a "good way" of doing things. It's just different and seems to have the consent and support of the Afghan people. My point was that we should not impose our institutions on a populace when they may have their own institutions that can lead to the same result. Your point about the tribal councils in Pakistan is a good one. As suggested above, the "checkpoints" that you refer to ought to be something that comes out of support and ideas from leading Muslim nations, not the US.
In my everyday life, I know that I pay more attention to criticism and suggestions that come from friends and family than I do from strangers or those I dislike. I think this is true for nations too.
myvoice
agreed, the other challenge that exists is that muslim nations and countries are not quite as homogenized and closely tied as outsiders may think, there is plenty of internal strife and head butting.
Additionally, this problem of representative governments is more of an issue in arab countries. Other muslim nations have some sort of democracy or have had some experience with democracy even if you look at a country like Pakistan where it has been in military rule for half its life..people know what democracy is, political parties of all different sorts exist. As corrupt or messed up the system may be..the seeds of democracy are there. Arab countries are a different issue and they may not be as open to advise from Turkey or Indonesia as we think.
Egypt could be key..but then they get accused of being a puppet by many since the days of Sadaat.
The pressure, recommendations etc tec has to be from all angles. That is why I think that US govt's plans to have a media presence in those countries is a definite plus. The world is getting smaller, with internet and satellite TV, people can be exposed to much more than they were a decade or 2 ago. Once the population is educated and made aware of the potential, and the country's leaders have internal and external pressure..things will change, slowly but surely.
The Saudia royals are aware of the further need of reforms. They have started in this area. The major point to this particular country is religion. Saudi Arabia is the Rome of Islam, twice over. It's government has the need to be conservative. In 1967, the Saudis privately encouraged the US to rid them of Nasser, the nationalist. Egypt and Israel were at it, hammer and tongs. The House of Saud apparently saw Nasser's government as a greater threat than Israel! The reformation of Saudi government is a touchy subject. Improvement should be gradual and methodical within the bounds of Islam for it to be accepted.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TOMASSO: *
Improvement should be gradual and methodical within the bounds of Islam for it to be accepted.
[/QUOTE]
Is monarchy in the bounds of islam?
anyways. which arab state is the most advanced in this area i.e representation of the people. Many arabs dont consider egypt as really an arab country.
so if we think of the various sultanates, kingdoms etc etc which one is the most advanced in this arena?
I would guess Islam sanctions the theory of monarchy and the British must have played a hand. Do any Muslim countries have a parliament? The West imposed monarchy on the nations, now the US is pushing for democracy. Democracy is a stage on which many strange actors can play.
pakistan has had its brushes woth democracy, bangladesh is a democracy, indonesia, turkey and egypt all have parliaments.
Now if you go to the arab countries, I dont know. I know that there is public representation at some levels but nothing to write home about.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TOMASSO: *
I would guess Islam sanctions the theory of monarchy and the British must have played a hand. Do any Muslim countries have a parliament? The West imposed monarchy on the nations, now the US is pushing for democracy. Democracy is a stage on which many strange actors can play.
[/QUOTE]
I question the basis of attributing British action to Islamic sanctioning of a monarchy. It is my understanding that the form of leadership recognized at the foundation of Islam is the Caliph, which has nothing to do with a monarchy.
I don't think it's fair to say that "the West" imposed monarchy on the nations. The British imposed their monarchy on lots of people, including the future US. The US emerged as a democracy notwithstanding its prior subservience to the British monarchy.
In Saudi Arabia, it appears as if some strongman basically conquered territory in the 1700s and imposed his will on the people. The modern Saudi state was formed around 1900 when another guy exerted his force to become ruler. He called himself king. Since then, his family has controlled things. I guess consent of the governed is just presumed because nobody has been strong enough to overthrow that family.
"My Voice", your post seems plausible enough. If true, then the Kingdom was much earlier developement than I realized, which doesn't surprise me. A relearning process is now my task. Could I state that the British sold the idea of monarchy with heavy emphasis? How different is a caliph to a king?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TOMASSO: *
Could I state that the British sold the idea of monarchy with heavy emphasis? How different is a caliph to a king?
[/QUOTE]
I don't know whether it is fair to say the British sold the idea of monarchy to the Saudis. I frankly don't know enough of SA history to comment one way or another. For some reason though, I don't really have a strong feeling that the British exerted much influence over SA. I think the earliest of today's Saudi Royal family seized control directly from the Ottoman empire and there was no colonialization there. I could be seriously mistaken though.
As to how different the caliph is from a king, I again am at a loss. I had assumed the Khalifa, Caliph, Caliphate or whatever once calls it is something distinctly different in structure from a monarchy? Does a Caliphate use succession based upon blood relation?
Yeah, the Sauds fought off the Turks with the help of the British at a later date. This is where Lawrence of Arabia steps in. The caliphate most likely is not a hereditary acension. The King was approved by some religious faction in 1963 or 1964. They had a consultantive body that could be a lifelong position. These are considered experts in their respective fields.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TOMASSO: *
The King was approved by some religious faction in 1963 or 1964.
[/QUOTE]
I wonder what kind of approval they gave.
In 1927, Abdul Aziz was officially proclaimed king, and the country was named the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932. I guess some kind of approval must have been given in 1932 by someone.
Are you indicating that some other kind of formal Islamic sanctioning of the monarchy occured later in 1963/1964?