Democracy And The Modern World

The modern world really began with the end of the Victorian Age and WW I.  This signaled the end to the power of the nobility and the rise of the common man.  The aristocrats survived but they are nothing more than quaint anachronisms and are irrelevant today.  The end of WW I brought great social change across the Western world but it also signaled the rise of the Bolsheviks, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Nazi’s, and even what became Communist China.  These all represent populist movements intended to right the wrongs of the past socially, politically, and economically.  The history of the twentieth century is littered with the enormous cost in human lives brought about by the failures of these movements.  But the echoes of these movements continue into the twenty first century and the social and economic problems which these movements meant to solve remain and are growing with the growth in population.

The globalization of markets made possible by technology and the speed of communications has spread global capitalism or at least the concept of individual worth  which has highlighted the unequal distribution of benefits and wealth that characterize capitalism.  In effect there are more rich people it the world today but there is also a larger and growing underclass of the working poor.  This isn’t as obvious in the developed western countries but it is very visible in the large cities in South America, Asia, and Africa.  This population of underpaid and frequently unemployed is a destabilizing influence and forms a ready source for radical terrorists, which is readily visible throughout the Middle East and Africa.  Throughout the twentieth century the poor were largely isolated geographically and technologically but that has changed in the twenty first century.

It is estimated that by 2010 thirty percent of the world’s population will have communication access through the internet and cell phones and that number will continue to grow.  This spread of technology will not and historically has not led to stability, but instead has been a destabilizing influence most recently demonstrated by the Islamic based violence around the world.  History shows that the invention of the printing press led to the religious reformation but also to the wars, controversies, and religious schisms that followed.  The current spread of information access is repeating this historical pattern.  We are witnessing the rise in violence triggered not by oppression but by the freedom of speech via communications not easily controlled by governments but readily available to the general population.

Policy makers – especially in the industrialized countries, are focused on bringing democracy to many of these countries currently under the thrall of dictators and religious zealots.  This policy of “democratization” is based on the assumption that this is a solution, but historically political freedom has unleashed the violence we are witnessing in Egypt and across the Middle East and North Africa.  These large populations of uneducated underpaid, and unemployed are unstable and as can be seen from the violence in these areas, easily manipulated by ethnic, religious, and power driven leaders.  The historic reality is that dictatorships can actually serve the people better than representative governments.  Anwar Sadat and King Hussein of Jordon are examples how a dictator who truly acts in the interest of the people can be more effective than an unstable and unworkable representative government.  Sadat and Hussein could not have made peace with Israel without the dictatorial power they possessed.  The current policy of democratization of countries is unlikely to yield stable governments but more likely to contribute to rising violence.

Some believe that if Egypt and Syria made peace with Israel the violence in the Middle East would cease or at the very least decline to a manageable level.  This is a false hope that rests on the premise that Israel itself is the casus belli but if Israel were to vanish the problems and carnage would remain.  The root cause of the problems in the Middle East is not Israel but the power struggle between Islamic factions and Israel is merely an excuse.  None of the Islamic states cares about Palestine or the Palestinians because they have never been willing to accept them as immigrants.  Instead they use the conflict with Israel for their own political ends, which are religious, ethnic, and struggles for power.  Therefore, democratization of Islamic states is unlikely to stabilize them and the reality of this can already be seen in Egypt.  The Mubarak dictatorship was overthrown and a democratic government elected which immediately failed because the newly elected leaders moved immediately to install a religious dictatorship.  It is unlikely that a democracy is the solution in the Middle East and in Egypt a military backed dictatorship may be the best solution.

 

Egypt -- Libya -- Islam

The events in Egypt and Libya taking place today may determine the future of the Middle East for years to come. More importantly these events may affect Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood, Palestine, and most certainly the radical Islamists. Will Islam and Sharia Law become the dominant force in the Middle East or will the more moderate Muslims prevail and turn toward modernism and the world at large? IRAN Perhaps Iran holds the key to any peace in the Middle East. It is a government dominated by a group of radical Shi’ite Clerics posing as a legitimate government. They are funding most of the violence endemic in the Arab World. They are working on the development of an atomic bomb and have already developed the means to deliver that bomb to Israel as well as Eastern Europe. The question is “will Iran use their nuclear capability to attack Israel?” I think this is unlikely because it would lead to the downfall of the current government and end the clerical dominance. Would Iran quietly provide the nuclear weapons to their Hezbollah alter ego? This also is unlikely because the relationship between Iran and Hezbollah is no secret. Would they offer nuclear weapons to Palestine in order to assist the Palestinians in their pathetic war against Israel? This might be a possibility if the radical Islamists truly want to destroy Israel. PALESTINE The first question is “Is Palestine a real nation or is it an imaginary country like Afghanistan? The Arab world pays a lot of lip service to the Palestinian “cause” but after more than 60 years of rhetoric no Arab country seems to provide the Palestinians any substantive support nor has the erstwhile government ever shown any control over the factions ruling and dividing them. True – someone is paying for the weapons used by the Palestinians but either the Palestinians don’t have enough men to use all of the weapons or there simply isn’t enough armament to effectively attack Israel. Either way it appears that the Palestinian problem is nothing more than a way for the Arab world to rally around a cause without getting too involved. As the events in Egypt, Libya, and Syria unfold the question becomes “will the emerging Arab governments opt for a peaceful co-existence with Israel and the world or will they intensify their attacks on Israel and the West? The answer to that question might lie with Saudi Arabia. SAUDI ARABIA This may be the most schizophrenic country in the world. It is a monarchy on the one hand but a theocracy on the other. There is the royal family who are westernized (ignore their traditional dress) and realize their fate may lie with the Western Powers because of their economic dependence. At the same time the Royal family is not totally confident in the support of the people and are afraid of Iran and it’s religious influence over the Saudi people. The Saudi’s are the guardians of the most sacred places in Islam, practice Sharia Law, and are expected to be the model of an Islamic state. So publicly the Saudi’s are opposed to Israel while it has been rumored for years that privately they don’t care about Israel, which raises the question of how will they react to the events in Egypt and Libya. EGYPT The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in the 1920’s as a semi-secret organization with the objective of establishing Islam as the governing authority in the Arab world. They have been opposed and outlawed ever since – at least until the recent elections in Egypt, where they received 51% of the vote. The Egyptian Military does not support the Muslim Brotherhood and has worked with the Egyptian Judicial arm to weaken the constitution and the power of the President. The military dissolved the Egyptian parliament but the new President Morsi in an act of defiance convened it and then adjourned it before the Military could act. This was clearly intended to challenge the Military. On the positive side Morsi has promised to include Christians and women in his government and has promised to govern for all Egyptians. As his first foreign visit he is visiting Saudi Arabia. This is an important visit because how the Saudi Arabian government receives him is important. They could influence him to establish a modus Vivendi with Israel, rein in the Palestinians (who rely on arms coming in from Egypt), lean toward the West and not Iran, or any combination of these. But Egypt and Saudi Arabia cannot ignore the events in Libya either and what happens there could influence what happens in Egypt. LIBYA The Libyans have over thrown Gaddafi whose government was at least nominally Islamic. The question now is will Libya become an Islamic government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood or will it lean toward the West and modernism? The recent elections in Libya have been indeterminate with the more secular National Forces Alliance headed my Mahmoud Jibril claiming victory while the Islamist Justice and Construction Party claims that it will ultimately prevail. This claim is based on the rather complicated political structure which prevents either party from gaining an absolute majority of the Parliament. Mohammed Sawan believes the independent votes in the Parliament will go to the Muslim Brotherhood giving them control of the government. At least some of the Independent parties fear the Muslim Brotherhood and see it as allied with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Other independents are opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood for fear that they would close off Libya from the West and install a conservative Islamic government. The Independent candidate stated that he had rebuffed offers from Justice and Construction Party (Muslim Brotherhood) because "Libyans are ready to experience democracy and only educated liberals with a world view can bring it." SYRIA Syria has yet to come into play due to the de facto civil war raging. The existing government is heavily supported by Iran, shelters Hezbollah, and tacitly opposes Israel. Precisely who the forces opposing the Syrian government are is uncertain. The Iraqi’s have warned that Al Qaeda troops are pouring into Syria from Iraq. If this is true it doesn’t bode well for Syria’s future. If the opposition prevails they could follow Libya and turn westward or they could establish an Islamic state with an anti-west position.

The Arab Spring and Islam

The entire Middle East is in turmoil as the people rise up in rebellion against the incumbent rulers. Unfortunately the western world sees this as a spontaneous effort by the people to achieve freedom and representative government. Actually this view rests on an appalling lack of historical knowledge as well as any insight into what Islam is all about. From the beginning Islam has swept all of the secular powers in the Middle East out of power and made great inroads into Europe and Asia but at no time did the Islamic rulers ever establish any semblance of a representative government or allow any of the freedoms so cherished by the West. Instead there has been just one repressive government after another and the Arab Spring is unlikely to produce anything close to a democratic government with all of the freedoms the west associates with democracy. In Iraq where American power overthrew a brutal dictator the new government is struggling to establish a representative government but is being challenged by Imam Al Sadr who wants an Islamic style government. In the meantime Christians are being persecuted along with any Jews that remain, so regardless of who emerges with the power it is unlikely to look anything like any western style democracy.

The people in the west, particularly those who subscribe to the pseudo-religion of multiculturalism and political correctness, watch these rebellions through western eyes and with virtually no understanding of what is actually happening. In the Arab world loyalties are very different than in the west and Libya is an excellent example to observe loyalties in the Arab world. In Islam loyalty is to the family – not just the nuclear family but all of the aunts, uncles, cousins, and nephews. The second loyalty is to the village and the third level of loyalty is to the tribe. Loyalty to a country if it exists at all is pretty thin and in spite of all of the flag waving in Libya this is essentially a tribal war and not a civil war in terms of the people versus the government. This is a group of western tribes who have held power for forty years being challenged by the eastern tribes who think it is time they held the power. Once the current regime in Libya is gone the new one is unlikely to establish anything resembling a truly democratic government. It will be an Islamic government with the only unknown being how extreme will it be.

Somehow the politically correct crowd in the west excuses the excesses of Islam on the basis that these are extremists and that at its core, Islam is a religion of peace. The naïveté of this position is astonishing given the 1500 years of evidence. The reality is the Muslim Moderates the politically correct cite as examples of Islam as peaceful simply don’t understand Islam. The true Muslims are those that are conducting the war against Christians, Jews, and Infidels. They are not “extremists who have perverted the teachings of the Koran – no -- in fact they are following Islam and the Koran to the letter. In reality it is the moderates are not adhering to the teachings of the Koran and it is unlikely they would be tolerated by Mohammed if he were alive today. Of course it is possible that as the Arab Spring progresses these moderate Muslims might come to power but it is highly unlikely given the history of Islam.

The mobs in the streets of Syria, Libya, and other Arab states are all male although in Egypt you might see a few women but even there the majority is male. Does anyone expect for the new regimes to suddenly give women equal rights? Will women be free to dress as they choose and go where they please? Will there be freedom of religion? Will Christian missionaries be permitted to proselytize in these countries under the new regimes? Will the new governments allow freedom of the press or will the government continue to control what the people hear? Will these new governments be friendly to the west or will they continue the jihad? Will Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and the multiple jihadist groups stop attacking the west? The reality is that nothing has changed and it is unlikely anything will change. Islam has been at war with Christians, Jews, and the infidels since the 7th Century and their attacks will not cease until they have conquered the world, which is what they believe is the command of Allah.

The western powers can help overthrow these repressive regimes and hope things will change but it is very unlikely. It is more probable that the former repressive regimes will be replaced by new repressive Islamic regimes perhaps not as extreme as the Taliban but certainly not resembling anything like a true democratic government with all of the freedoms associated with a free and open society.

Political Rant 2008 Q 1

Well the 2008 Presidential Campaign is now in full swing with the media fawning all over the Democratic candidates because they know that the current fascist, homophobic and Islamophobic administration is about to come to an end as the American public comes to its senses and finally elects the socialist government that will put America back in synch with our European Allies. Of course in the spirit of fairness the ever left leaning media have anointed that laughable hayseed Pastor Huckabee as the shoo-in candidate of the Republicans. This support of course is quite calculated because the Democratic Party and their sycophantic media pundits are convinced that the Pastor could never be elected by the American electorate because even those denizens of “flyover land” could not possibly be dumb enough to vote for such a yahoo, especially when they are presented with truly great alternatives who will put America on the right track – that is bring the country into the conformance with the UN and the socialist European Community. It isn’t certain that this strategy by the media of supporting a rightwing loser in order to guarantee a victory for the Democratic Party will succeed, especially when the Democratic candidates are given a critical review.

The candidates being put forward are truly a wonder and the wonder is how the public can see any of them as a reasonable choice. Depending on your point of view, the front runner is Hillary Clinton – whose credentials are truly amazing—amazing for their lack of substance. It is true she spent eight years in the white house but by that standard the White House Butler is more qualified because he has spent even more time there, this is known as the “Jeeves Effect”. Hillary Clinton view herself as Co-President and attempted to share the power of the President, which was displayed in her universal healthcare program which flopped. She did run for Senator but her experience as a Senator has been minimal and she can not point to any major legislation or success during her tenure. She is widely viewed as the best and most qualified person to run the country, but this conclusion seems to be based exclusively on her gender because she has never had any diplomatic experience, any military command, or actually managed anything including a business. Somehow the Democratic Party views this almost total lack of experience as inconsequential, but perhaps she is an expert in parliamentary procedures.

The other front runner is Barrack Hussein Obama, who has even fewer qualifications than Hillary Clinton who has almost none. The actual facts surrounding Barrack Obama are carefully glossed over or denied altogether. He is NOT a Muslim but both his father and step-father are not only Muslim they are radical Muslims. So for Obama not to have been influenced by these men he must repudiate them altogether, something that has not been done. He is a Christian, and well he might be but the Christian Church he belongs to is all black, focused on black issues (presumably while still enjoying tax exemptions) and a supporter of Louis Farrakhan a noted bigot and anti-Semite. These things must be placed into perspective when considering Obama’s statement that he will withdraw (surrender is the better word) from Iraq. His position on Israel is either vague or non-existent but like most of the left we can assume he is for peace, which always translates into more concessions by Israel and more justifications for the murderous attacks by the Palestinians.

Nevertheless, these things can be ignored and the focus should be on his qualifications. He has never been in the military, he has no diplomatic experience, he has less than one term as a Senator, he has never managed a business or had to turn a profit, he has no administrative experience in government, and he cannot point to any activity in his past that would qualify him to manage a cookie drive must less the country. So the primary reason to vote for Obama is that he is black. He is also given to demagogic speech laced with vague statements like “we will change the world”. He never explains how he intends to change the world, what he intends to change, or how he intends to change it. A few specifics in his rhetoric would help.

This brings us to former Senator John Edwards. To accept that John Edwards is a simple lawyer who has made a fortune defending the poor and downtrodden is to believe that the famous sailor Edward Teach – aka Blackbeard – made his fortune in shipping. There is nothing quite so satisfying as dipping into the pockets of large corporations while protecting the unfortunate and banking some very handsome fees. But here we have another leading candidate who has no experience outside of the courtroom. He has no diplomatic, administrative, or military background. He has been a Senator so he is as qualified as the other two leading candidates, which is to say, unqualified.

The Democratic Party has truly lost its way and should be renamed the “People’s Socialist Party” because they no longer believe in capitalism or a capitalist America. These are indeed harsh words but these candidates are the ones who are calling for an immediate withdrawal of American Troops from Iraq and Afghanistan which is tantamount to surrendering to the very forces that have attacked America and American interests for more than 30 years. This is the party that has eliminated free speech through their dedication to multi—culturalism and political correctness. Conservative voices are routinely drowned out across college campuses through protests and intimidation reminiscent of the Nazi Brown Shirts and any challenge to the politically correct viewpoint on marriage, abortion, or evolution is not tolerated. This is the party that is dedicated to social engineering through government control and this has already been accomplished through legislation against smoking and efforts at gun control, trans-fats, and fat people. This new Democratic Party is pushing universal – and government controlled – healthcare, while denying they are in favor of socialism or that this is a socialist program.

The candidates for the Democratic Party are advocating change but are saying what changes they are advocating or how they intend to implement them. They should have nominated Joe Lieberman or Governor Richardson, but these men have nothing to recommend them except experience and electability.

Middle East Policies

Recently we were treated to one of the most idiotic speeches by President Bush that he has delivered in his presidency and that is going some. Once again he mounted his horse and promised to bring “democracy” to the Middle East as if these people were longing for a representative government and the freedoms enjoyed in the West. The fact that he actually delivered this speech rests entirely on his shoulders but ultimately it is the fault of the State Department. The State Department has been monopolized by the East Coast intelligentsia practically since its inception and in sprite of the highly vaunted quality of education delivered by the Ivy League their alumni have never been strong on history – especially history of the Middle East. It’s as if the Ottoman Empire never existed.

Virtually all of the current Islamic States were ruled by the Ottomans for 400 years. During this period there was no Renaissance, no Reformation, no Industrial Revolution, or steady improvement in medicine, hygiene, public health, or education. But the Ottomans maintained peace and order during this entire time because the Ottomans would not tolerate any challenge to their authority and the punishments they inflicted on any challenger were draconian. Then the Ottomans – thanks to the bumbling of Winston Churchill – sided with the Kaiser and their empire was dismantled by the French and British. It has never known a peaceful moment since then. The Western Democracies have never understood nor even attempted to understand the people or their motivations in the Middle East. Instead the drive has been to westernize them and to create freely elected democratic governments that were independent of the Mosque. This policy has consistently failed with the only exception being Turkey but that was reformed from within by Kemal Attaturk and was not accomplished by the Western Powers. This failed policy of westernization continues today as is evidenced by President Bush’s speech and the American Foreign Policy relative to Iraq.

The British and French and now the Americans arrogantly assume that because the Islamic States are consistently mired in poverty, ignorance, and squalor they are desperate to become westernized. Well when the Ottoman Empire was dismantled Iraq was a constitutional monarchy until 1958 when the Army overthrew the monarchy in a very bloody coup. Prior to this coup the “democratic” government conducted genocide against the Assyrians and the Jews. The Shiites were suppressed as well. The brutality of this regime rivaled that of Saddam Hussein and it was all done under a democratic government, but not one where all were created equal or given equal protection under the law. All of this is on the historical record – a record our State Department and all of those Alumni from all of those fancy colleges seem to have neglected to read. The liberal media as well as all of those well meaning politicians had assumed that the Iraqi’s were longing for a democratic government, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, and an elected parliament. What they neglected to consider was what happened when the British introduced those democratic institutions in 1920, which was exactly what happened after the Bush Administration re-introduced them in 2005. What happened then is what is happening now – civil war, massacres, and an unreliable military that merrily participates in the internecine warfare. This is the background that permeates the Middle East and it is against this background that President Bush calls for the installation of democratically elected western style governments. The fallacy of this policy is obvious or should be obvious and certainly the various Sheiks, Emirs, Monarchs, and Presidents for Life know that this is not in their best interest.

Governments throughout the Middle East are dictatorships, monarchies, or some similar absolutist government and all of them are driven by Islam no matter how secular they may appear. While Iran and Egypt are ancient countries the rest are artificial creations of the west. The separation of church and state so common in the west is unheard of in the world of Islam where governments are subservient to the religious leaders and no where is this more apparent than in Iran and Iraq today. The time has long past for America and the Western powers to cease their insistence that the Middle East adopt western values and conduct themselves and their affairs along western lines. There is no history of democratic governments or even processes in these countries and those governments that are stable are authoritarian.

This is not a call for America to establish a military government similar to what was done in Japan in 1945. It is too late for that but this constant drumbeat for the creation of freely elected governments must cease. The more America, the western media, and the liberal establishment press for this unrealistic objective the more idiotic we seem and the harder it is for our friends in the area – and there are some – to take us seriously. Our foreign policy needs to be revamped to accept the reality that many of these countries were better off under the absolute authority of the Ottomans. It should seem apparent to any educated westerner that the Islamic countries have no desire to become westernized or democracies. They were happy in the seventh century and they were happy under the Ottomans, but the west wanted their oil and in order to get it they felt it was necessary to modernize the Middle East. This modernization has been resisted by Islam for 500 years and is resisting now, unfortunately Pandora’s Box was opened with the fall of the Ottomans and now we are left with result and no solution in sight.