Are Islamist victories avoidable?
“If democracy is to triumph in the Middle East, then Islamist victories are unavoidable and essential.” This was the resolution debated in the opening panel of last Thursday’s event on “Dictators and Dissidents: Should the West choose sides?” hosted by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress affirmed the resolution and Rob Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal opposed it. Though there were two teams, four different positions emerged.
Gerecht argued that democracy takes time and we should have faith in the democratic process. We may not know what the ultimate outcome of a democratic process, but we do know what will happen with the alternative. Dictators in the Middle East did not move their countries any closer to democracy. They created an environment that gave rise to al Qaeda.
Stephens responded arguing that the democratic process will not be successful when those participating, Islamists in his example, are opposed to democracy. Democratic process cannot be conflated with democracy. Stephens added that sometimes we have to make difficult choices, like supporting a dictator if we think the outcome will be more democratic than a democratic process in the same area would yield. Gerecht equated this with Kemalism, which he called “enlightened despotism.”
Satloff denied the inevitability of Islamist victories. In reality, Islamists rarely win – they almost never get more than 1/3 of the popular vote. What really happens is that non-Islamists lose because of in-fighting and lack of coherent vision. Ahmed Shafiq won 48% of the popular vote even though he was associated with Mubarak suggesting desire for non-Islamist leadership. A capable non-Islamist candidate from an organized party would have had a good shot. To believe that people in the Middle East will often elect Islamists is to fall victim to what Satloff calls the “bigotry of low expectations.” We should believe that people in the Middle East are capable of making reasonable decisions and as such, will not elect Islamists every time.
Katulis argued the opposite point. He said debating this resolution is like debating gravity. Islamists are winning. When they do win, he believes they will have to moderate their ideals and policies, which might be the best antidote to extremism.
It was unclear who won the debate. It seems like the root question is about how much faith one has in the democratic process. Election outcomes don’t matter if your faith is strong.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
3 thoughts on “Are Islamist victories avoidable?”
Comments are closed.
RSS - Posts
I can´t but escape the feeling that this website and the viewpoints presented here (subscribed for about 2-3 weeks) might be the best example of how democracies are a scam… 😉
And mind you, I am not talking about the views presented here, they are biased, like any, that´s not the point, but more how it´s, like Swiss cheese, full of holes. Main one being that it is susceptible to physical(military and I guess ideological) and commercial coercion(forces).
Not saying that there is a better form of government but that we´ve probably never really had one, at least not in any significant sense.
Even if one existed it was either crushed or probably became imperialist in a hearthbeat…
Nosfa Fasfa, I’ve heard enough of byzantine talk for several lifetimes. If you think to engage dialog state your points clearly so they can be argued and stop badgering. Your childish points of view are of no use except, perhaps, in your local pub. E.g. “Not saying that there is a better form of government but that we´ve probably never really had one, at least not in any significant sense.” – this means that you never had, nor experienced democracy, and since I do not know what country you are from I do not know which country you are actually speaking about. I do recognize obscurity of byzantine ‘logic’.
“It seems like the root question is about how much faith one has in the democratic process. Election outcomes don’t matter if your faith is strong.”
Oh, Lord, another faith-based approach to governance.
According to Jefferson, who knew something about it, there are certain requirements for a democratic society – the capacity of its citizens being the main one. I now quote Scripture to this effect:
“The qualifications for self-government in society are not innate. They are the result of habit and long training.”
“[Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.] And to render them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree.”
And this is what bothers me about a government based on a religion, any religion. Religions behave best while their members are a persecuted minority, when they favor everybody getting along. Once in charge of a society, people tend to behave like people and run roughshod over everyone, especially when they are secure in what they believe is their support by the creator and ruler of the universe (who wants them to make sure His/Her/Its/Their rules are strictly enforced, especially on others). Hence the Blue Laws of Massachusetts. When the religion controls education, even Jefferson’s hope for an “improvement in the minds” of a democracy’s citizens by universal education may be too optimistic.
Americans shouldn’t feel too confident we’ve got it all figured out, even after a couple of hundred years of experience at this. Retired Supreme-Court Justice Souter said (at some round-table recently) that all of the emphasis being put today on basic education to prepare kids for life as employees is at the expense of education for citizenship. Democracy is not a spectator sport, and future players have to learn the rules by “long training,” after all.