As democracy grows in the Arab world, the thinking goes, the region will stop generating anti-American terrorism. Promoting democracy in the Middle East is therefore not merely consistent with U.S. security goals; it is necessary to achieve them.
But this begs a fundamental question: Is it true that the more democratic a country becomes, the less likely it is to produce terrorists and terrorist groups? In other words, is the security rationale for promoting democracy in the Arab world based on a sound premise?
Unfortunately, the answer appears to be no. Although what is known about terrorism is admittedly incomplete, the data available do not show a strong relationship between democracy and an absence of or a reduction in terrorism. Terrorism appears to stem from factors much more specific than regime type. Nor is it likely that democratization would end the current campaign against the United States. Al Qaeda and like-minded groups are not fighting for democracy in the Muslim world; they are fighting to impose their vision of an Islamic state. Nor is there any evidence that democracy in the Arab world would "drain the swamp," eliminating soft support for terrorist organizations among the Arab public and reducing the number of potential recruits for them.
Even if democracy were achieved in the Middle East, what kind of governments would it produce?
Would they cooperate with the United States on important policy objectives besides curbing terrorism, such as advancing the Arab-Israeli peace process, maintaining security in the Persian Gulf, and ensuring steady supplies of oil?
No one can predict the course a new democracy will take, but based on public opinion surveys and recent elections in the Arab world, the advent of democracy there seems likely to produce new Islamist governments that would be much less willing to cooperate with the United States than are the current authoritarian rulers.
It is thus time to rethink the U.S. emphasis on democracy promotion in the Arab world?
-
YepThat, and its none of our buisness, and all of the wars are unconstitutional. We'll go bankrupt from interventionalism and our social programs soon so don't worry, because then we'll be forced to change. Hopefully China won't foreclose on us.Voted for by Hardhittn63.
-
Tricky BickyInterventionism is a tricky son of a bitch, I'm against it generally - far better to give support, monetary and if requested and realistic militart, to indigenous movements for democracy, human rights etc.Voted for by Alexander Hine.
The only problem with your argument Energizer, is that you assume that democracy is merely populist - whereas, in my eyes, true democracy is based on rights as well as majority rule - this is liberal democracy. This means that The majority does retain power, but they cannot vote, for example, to wipe out a minority group or to pass a law requiring non-Muslims to pay special taxes etc.
If a democracy such as this could be introduced in a Middle Eastern country it could indeed lead to a reduction of terrorism, by outlawing Islamist policies and violence, in that country, though not against it. However, if as you say, most Muslims support terrorism then this sort of democracy would not be possible.
I like to think, though, that support for terrorism in the Muslim world is exaggerated. I'm sure there is a silent majority who just want a normal life and only support the terrorist groups because they tend to deliver (like Hamas) on basic services that other corrupt regimes fail on.
Maybe that's too optimistic, I'll have to look into the stats.
May Ibn Warraq prevail and Tariq Ramadan wail.
A. H.
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free