Harper's Magazine: "Parties of God"

[headexplode]

Here is a fantastic article from Harper's about growing Islamic-based democratic political movements in the Middle East, and the West's unwillingness to engage them on any fundamental level. The author points out, correctly, that our supposed intention of spreading democracy to desparate lands is shown to be hollow when we refuse to even have the slightest political engagement with groups that enjoy widespread support and continue to throw our weight behind despotic regimes in the region for short-term stability.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/03/0081425

Parties of God: The Bush doctrine and the rise of Islamic democracy

BYKen Silverstein

Among the precepts of the “Bush Doctrine”—as loyalists to the current president call the set of foreign-policy principles by which they, and no doubt he, hope his tenure will be remembered—by far the most widely admired has been his stance on democracy in the developing world. The clearest articulation of this stance can be found in a November 2003 speech at the Washington headquarters of the United States Chamber of Commerce, when Bush sharply denounced not just tyranny in the Arab states but the logic by which the West had abetted it. “Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe—because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty,” he said. “As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export.” Saying it would be “reckless to accept the status quo,” Bush called for a new “forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East.” At least in its rhetoric, this was nothing less than a blanket repudiation of six decades of American foreign policy.

Since the president’s speech, democracy’s cause has suffered a series of setbacks in the Middle East. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has been arresting government critics and has rejected calls to hold elections for even a toothless “consultative council.” (The kingdom has no parliament.) In Egypt, which receives $2 billion per year in American aid, President Hosni Mubarak was “reelected” two years ago in a landslide, nine months after his regime jailed his primary challenger, Ayman Nour, on the spurious charge that he had forged signatures for his party’s registration. Political repression has also increased in Jordan, another recipient of vast U.S. financial aid. The government has imposed new restrictions on free speech and public assembly, a crackdown designed to squelch overwhelming domestic opposition to the regime’s close alliance with the Bush Administration.

Notwithstanding President Bush’s new “forward strategy of freedom,” the United States has marshaled nothing more than a few hollow demurrals against the antidemocratic abuses by its allies, and it maintains close partnerships with all of America’s old authoritarian friends in the region. When reaching out to opposition figures, it has chosen pro-Western elites such as Nour in Egypt or Ahmed Chalabi in Iraq, both of whom are more admired in Washington and London than they are at home.

Above all, America has refused to engage with Islamic opposition movements, even those that flatly reject violence and participate in democratic politics. It is true that many Islamists long rejected the concept of elections, which the more radical of them still argue are an infringement on God’s sovereignty; others rejected democracy because they believed, with good reason, that elections in their countries were so flagrantly rigged that they offered no realistic path to change. (Of course, Islamic groups that did seek to campaign in elections were frequently barred from doing so by dictatorial regimes.) But since the 1990s, growing numbers of Islamists have concluded that reform from within can be achieved gradually, through electoral politics.

Today, there are dozens of active Islamic political parties, both Shiite and Sunni, with diverse political and ideological agendas. Their leaders are certainly not liberal democrats, and some, like Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon, maintain armed wings. But it is not entirely accurate to describe them, as is frequently done in the United States, as fundamentalist or backward or even necessarily conservative. The new Islamic movements are popularly based and endorse free elections, the rotation of power, freedom of speech, and other concepts that are scorned by the regimes that currently hold power. Islamist groups have peacefully accepted electoral defeat, even when it was obvious that their governments had engaged in gross fraud to assure their hold on power. In parliaments, Islamists have not focused on implementing theocracy or imposing shari‘ah but have instead fought for

political and social reforms, including government accountability.

And increasingly the Islamists have numbers on their side. Were democracy suddenly to blossom in the Middle East today, Islamist parties would control significant blocs, if not majorities, in almost every country. Hamas swept to victory in the Palestinian elections of 2006, in a vote among the freest ever seen in the Middle East. 11. In response to the vote, which was held with U.S. support, President Bush cut off aid to the new government and announced that the United States would not speak to its leaders.The Shiite group Hezbollah, which, like Hamas, is designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization, picked up parliamentary seats in Lebanon’s 2005 national balloting and entered the cabinet for the first time. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood—despite being officially banned, and despite massive fraud and violence against supporters—won eighty-eight seats in parliament two years ago, making it by far the largest opposition bloc. The Islamic Action Front, Jordan’s major Islamic party and a wing of the local Muslim Brotherhood, is generally considered to be the country’s best-organized political movement and won 15 percent of the parliamentary seats in the most recent election.

One need not endorse either the ideology or the tactics of these groups to wonder if the wholesale rejection of dialogue with them is truly in the long-term interests of the United States. Indeed, looking beyond the disastrous war in Iraq, perhaps the central questions facing American foreign policy are as follows: How is it possible to promote democracy and fight terrorism when movements deemed by the United States to be terrorist and extremist are the most politically popular in the region? And given this popularity, what would true democracy in these nations resemble? It is impossible to answer these questions without first listening to these movements, but the U.S. government and, frequently, the media have deemed them unworthy even of this; their public grievances—over America’s seemingly unconditional support for Israel, its invasion of Iraq, its backing of dictatorial regimes that rule much of the Muslim world—are dismissed as illegitimate or insincere, their hostility explained away as a rejection of “Western freedoms.” In fact, as I discovered during my own visits with Islamist leaders over the past year, these groups are busy forging their own notions of freedom, some of them Western and some of them decidedly not. If we want to envision a democratic future for the region, we need not embrace these ideas, but we most certainly need to understand them.

[rincewind]

I hear God throws some banging parties. I've never been invited though.

[headexplode]

I hear God throws some banging parties. I've never been invited though.

Jimi Hendrix played at the last one, with a special guest appearance by Rick James. And I've never seen so many topless nuns.

[Burgold]

It's sort of like saying... We follow the lead of our Generals and then firing every General until you find one that does what you want. Or saying we'll do everything for the troops, but balk at body armor or armoring up vehicles, or saying that those serving in Iraq don't warrant combat pay or vetoing bills that would provide better medical care.

He wants democrasy as long as it's where, when, how, and with whom he wants it.

[twa]

So we should have meaningful dialog with Hamas,Hezbollah ect??

Next I guess you will call for more financial aid to them.

You must miss the good ole days of Arafat and the peace and prosperity.

[Burgold]

So we should have meaningful dialog with Hamas,Hezbollah ect??

Next I guess you will call for more financial aid to them.

You must miss the good ole days of Arafat and the peace and prosperity.

Well, I guess I should read more than the openning first two 'graphs. While I do think we should talk and have meaningful dialogue with everyone... those are two pretty lousy groups.

[twa]

On the lighter side ,I can't help but be amused at this development.

Oh no...who would ever think it possible.

Hamas: Fatah using 'insurgency' tactics

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1191257227801

Blowback???

[headexplode]

So we should have meaningful dialog with Hamas,Hezbollah ect??

Next I guess you will call for more financial aid to them.

You must miss the good ole days of Arafat and the peace and prosperity.

Damn, I would expect this kind of post from AFC, but not you.

Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood, nasty as they are, do enjoy widespread popular support, and if our desires for democracy in the world are genuine we should make an effort to engage them. (Engagement, by the way, does not mean support or endorsement.) The US has a long history of diplomatic relationships with less than stellar regimes because, by and large, our best statesmen realize(d) that force without diplomacy is just as ineffective and counterproductive as diplomacy without force. (One of the most notable and infamous of such relationships began when Henry Kissinger, and later Donald Rumsfeld, traveled to Iraq to try to open diplomatic relations with that despotic regime.)

Democracy is never perfect, and it never looks exactly the same. The author says that question should not be, Is Islam compatible with democracy, but, is the West ready for Islamic democracy? Do we only support democracy when it's convenient and beneficial for us? Or do we truly wish to see a democratic middle east? What would that look like?

We support and engage the despotic regimes in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia because of their efforts in the GWOT, yet we refuse to even acknowledge Hamas, who was elected democratically in Palestine. This kind of carelessness gives the impression that our efforts in that region do not derive from a sincere desire for a democratic middle east, but simply a desire for short-term self-interest whose actions are largely determined by the level of convenience to us.

This policy, in the long run, is unsustainable.

[rincewind]

Damn, I would expect this kind of post from AFC, but not you.

Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood, nasty as they are, do enjoy widespread popular support, and if our desires for democracy in the world are genuine we should make an effort to engage them. (Engagement, by the way, does not mean support or endorsement.) The US has a long history of diplomatic relationships with less than stellar regimes because, by and large, our best statesmen realize(d) that force without diplomacy is just as ineffective and counterproductive as diplomacy without force. (One of the most notable and infamous of such relationships began when Henry Kissinger, and later Donald Rumsfeld, traveled to Iraq to try to open diplomatic relations with that despotic regime.)

C'mon explode - you should know we are all for self-determination unless those selves determine to have a type of government we disagree with.

[headexplode]

C'mon explode - you should know we are all for self-determination unless those selves determine to have a type of government we disagree with.

I know, I know--I should know by now the words we say never actually line up with the things we do.

[twa]

I suppose you overlook we DO have dialog with Hamas,Iran(Hez's master) ect simply because we do not support them ? (except for Hamas and others that benefit from our humanitarian aid)

What do you wish,a endorsement of them?

added

Hamas ain't real popular right now anyway,since the people see the results.

[headexplode]

I suppose you overlook we DO have dialog with Hamas,Iran(Hez's master) ect simply because we do not support them ? (except for Hamas and others that benefit from our humanitarian aid)

What do you wish,a endorsement of them?

Are you even reading my posts? Let me say it again--political engagement does not mean that we must support or endorse anyone. In fact, I don't think we should do either one.

Last I heard, we refuse to even acknowledge Hamas as a legitimate government, even though they were democratically elected.

We can't solve all our problems by bombing them. We can't solve all our problems by trying to be the lone cowboy in the desert. Sometimes you have to sit down at a table to try to resolve differences. (This is not to say we've never tried--but we must renew the effort.) Sometimes, that takes sacrifice and compromise from both sides. We can't continue to engage despotic, unpopular regimes and ignore popular Islamic regimes because we don't like what they have to say.

[headexplode]

added

Hamas ain't real popular right now anyway,since the people see the results.

Hell, our government ain't that popular right now, either.

The funny thing about Hamas is that they won the popular election, then realized they had no idea how to run a government. Things are not very good right now, there.

But they still do enjoy support from many Palestinians because the people feel that, even though the government is not working, it is their government.

[headexplode]

Damn, I would expect this kind of post from AFC, but not you.

Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood, nasty as they are, do enjoy widespread popular support, and if our desires for democracy in the world are genuine we should make an effort to engage them. (Engagement, by the way, does not mean support or endorsement.) The US has a long history of diplomatic relationships with less than stellar regimes because, by and large, our best statesmen realize(d) that force without diplomacy is just as ineffective and counterproductive as diplomacy without force. (One of the most notable and infamous of such relationships began when Henry Kissinger, and later Donald Rumsfeld, traveled to Iraq to try to open diplomatic relations with that despotic regime.)

Democracy is never perfect, and it never looks exactly the same. The author says that question should not be, Is Islam compatible with democracy, but, is the West ready for Islamic democracy? Do we only support democracy when it's convenient and beneficial for us? Or do we truly wish to see a democratic middle east? What would that look like?

We support and engage the despotic regimes in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia because of their efforts in the GWOT, yet we refuse to even acknowledge Hamas, who was elected democratically in Palestine. This kind of carelessness gives the impression that our efforts in that region do not derive from a sincere desire for a democratic middle east, but simply a desire for short-term self-interest whose actions are largely determined by the level of convenience to us.

This policy, in the long run, is unsustainable.

Well, headexplode, that's an interesting point of view. While I don't agree with it, I can respect that you have a different perspective than me. Obviously, you put thought and effort into your post. Though we may differ in a lot of respects, contradiction and debate must never devolve into petty personal name-calling and vitriolic self-righteousness. If this happens, we play right into the hands of those that mean us harm.

While we both have differences, we must strive to resolve them and formulate these seemingly conflicting ideas into a realistic, sustainable strategy, not only to ensure a positive future for the United States, but the larger world as well. Contradiction and debate can bring about positive change, but only when we have the wisdom to step back from ourselves, to get a better vantage point of the longer road ahead.

[headexplode]

Well, headexplode, that's an interesting point of view. While I don't agree with it, I can respect that you have a different perspective than me. Obviously, you put thought and effort into your post. Though we may differ in a lot of respects, contradiction and debate must never devolve into petty personal name-calling and vitriolic self-righteousness. If this happens, we play right into the hands of those that mean us harm.

While we both have differences, we must strive to resolve them and formulate these seemingly conflicting ideas into a realistic, sustainable strategy, not only to ensure a positive future for the United States, but the larger world as well. Contradiction and debate can bring about positive change, but only when we have the wisdom to step back from ourselves, to get a better vantage point of the longer road ahead.

Thank you, headexplode, your kind words show that you truly are a gentleman and a scholar. Frankly, we need more of your kind.

Even though you are a conservative and I am a liberal, I understand that we ultimately want the same thing: peace and liberty for our loved ones and ourselves, the ability to pursue our dreams and ensure our legacy is one of progress and unity, not stagnation and division. We may differ in how we think one can best accomplish these goals, but with humility, imagination, and perhaps a little restraint on our pride, we can bridge the chasm that separates us and join hands to fight another day.

Godspeed, dear friend, and may tomorrow bring us hope!

[headexplode]

Thank you, headexplode, your kind words show that you truly are a gentleman and a scholar. Frankly, we need more of your kind.

Even though you are a conservative and I am a liberal, I understand that we ultimately want the same thing: peace and liberty for our loved ones and ourselves, the ability to pursue our dreams and ensure our legacy is one of progress and unity, not stagnation and division. We may differ in how we think one can best accomplish these goals, but with humility, imagination, and perhaps a little restraint on our pride, we can bridge the chasm that separates us and join hands to fight another day.

Godspeed, dear friend, and may tomorrow bring us hope!

Truly, you are a god among men.

[Predicto]

All of you are making good points except headexplode.

[techboy]

All of you are making good points except headexplode.

Hmm... I don't know. I think headexplode had some pretty good points. Sir, your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

headexplode, on the other hand, is clearly over his head in this discussion, and should do a little research before mouthing off.

[PeterMP]

Truly, you are a god among men.

Well, I guess at least you both agree that you are both good people. That is a start.

I think they messed up w/ the Palestanians. I don't disagree w/ cutting off the money, but you can't go around the world saying, 'We support democracy.', and then one somebody elects a goverment you don't like say, 'We don't recognize this democratically elected goverment.' Even w/ in Hamas there are more moderate elements.

[headexplode]

headexplode, on the other hand, is clearly over his head in this discussion, and should do a little research before mouthing off.

All of you are making good points except headexplode.

Attack me all you want, but I served in the Boy Scouts of America. What have you done for your country?

[headexplode]

I think they messed up w/ the Palestanians. I don't disagree w/ cutting off the money, but you can't go around the world saying, 'We support democracy.', and then one somebody elects a goverment you don't like say, 'We don't recognize this democratically elected goverment.' Even w/ in Hamas there are more moderate elements.

I completely agree with you. Cutting off money is one thing, and I can understand that. But completely ignoring them and refusing to accept their legitimacy as a democratically-elected government to me smacks of ego-driven ignorance that will, in the long run, further diminish our ability to combat extremism in the region.

[headexplode]

Attack me all you want, but I served in the Boy Scouts of America. What have you done for your country?

Oh, great, you gotta bring that up again. Stay on topic, headexplode. Debate the issues.

[twa]

I think they messed up w/ the Palestanians. I don't disagree w/ cutting off the money, but you can't go around the world saying, 'We support democracy.', and then one somebody elects a goverment you don't like say, 'We don't recognize this democratically elected goverment.' Even w/ in Hamas there are more moderate elements.

There has certainly been many mistakes dealing with the Palestinians,however not recognizing a terrorist group with the declared goal of eliminating the next country was not one of them. :2cents:

You do realize we ARE still giving them financial aid?

[techboy]

Attack me all you want, but I served in the Boy Scouts of America. What have you done for your country?

Oh, no, you misunderstand. I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about headexplode.

Oh, and thank you for your service to our country.

You're a great American.

[Predicto]

There has certainly been many mistakes dealing with the Palestinians,however not recognizing a terrorist group with the declared goal of eliminating the next country was not one of them. :2cents:

You do realize we ARE still giving them financial aid?

Which them?