Greetings all!
This post begins my two part ending to May, wherein I will once again make my opinions known on a foreign and domestic issue. I begin with the foreign issue, as I believe it is much more prominent to more people at this moment. As stated in the title, I intend to embark on a topic many of my friends seem to be confused about; namely, the role of religion in the newly free Middle Eastern nations. Due to populist uprisings and regime changes in the past year or so, much has changed in the region, and new governments will have to respond to wildly different attitudes among the people they rule. This week's quote comes from David Ben-Gurion, the founder of Israel and its first prime minister, a man I consider to be a both a level-headed leader and a hero to the Jewish people during his time.
A big part of why the U.S. has become invested in recent Middle Eastern politics is once again a policy of control, in which we hope to ensure that new leaders are beneficial to us so as to eliminate all possible chances of regional enemies. While this is a policy I strongly abhor, I can see why it is pursued. We typically have few friends outside Israel in the Middle East, and for good reasons too. We've never been popular due to our attempts to exert influence and power in a place that had long deserved it. However, with the Arab Spring completed, many new governments have formed, and the process of careful diplomacy has begun once more. This time, nothing easy will come through, and freedom is going to be the very problem the U.S. confronts when looking for more allies. Specifically, religious freedoms are going to make most political situations with the region quite a bit more complex in the coming years. The best way to explain this is to delve into a parallel, which I take in the form of post-communistic Poland. During the Cold War, Poland was run by Soviet-friendly communist governments that for a time both benefited and satisfied the Polish people. But in the later years, economic stagnation coupled with stricter controls led to popular unrest, eventually igniting a fuse that let the Polish government impose martial law in 1981 (http://www.videofact.com/english/martial_law.htm). By the end of the Soviet period, the Solidarity Union was so popular it gained enough strength to topple the communist regime and restore a democratic nation, which gratefully swept Lech Walesa into power. And as such, new freedoms led to overindulgence by the Polish populace. While economic reforms buoyed the nation, religious reforms made it into one of the most devout ones as well. This occurred because communist governments of Eastern Europe were hostile to organized religion, mostly because it could subvert national strength, although it also was simply a fact of the matter that the further left on the political scale you go the less power religion is typically allowed to have. And so, with new freedom the Poles decided to shove religion into strength just as another expression of Polish nationalism and independence.
This ties in with the modern Middle East because the same situation is playing out, but on a far larger scale. Just like communist Poland, many dictators in the Middle East suppressed full-on religious politics, sometimes to prevent isolating minorities, and other times to prevent subversion of national authority in favor of god. I suppose the best two examples of these are Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak, the leaders of Iraq and Egypt respectively. Hussein typically avoided religious moves in his power structure because he was a Sunni Muslim, a minority in Iraq, and by using his religion he risked drawing lines with the majority Sh'ia population. Had he used religion for control or gain, he also risked disillusionment with his secular Ba'ath party, which he feared would lead Iraqis into the hands of his regional rival Iran, a nation which espouses religious politics consistently. As for Mubarak, he typically prevented religion from taking national jurisprudence because of Egypt's ties to its neighbor Israel. As long as the nation remained tolerant of a Jewish state and avoided inflammatory words, peace and trade could be ensured, buoying the Egyptian economy and world image. Avoiding religious politics also helped Mubarak to retain domestic strength, due to the fact that secular politics allowed a secure police state with pro-business policies that did not discriminate against minorities in the country. However, with the fall of dictators and the institution of reforms, the barriers to religion have been broken, and a flood will happen whether we like it or not.
The key now to preserve peace while also ensuring new freedoms is to take things slowly and prevent religion from taking power along with its freedom. As we have seen in Tunisia and Egypt, strong showings by Islamist parties have made this likely impossible (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2011/10/2011102721287933474.html, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/muslim_brotherhood_egypt/index.html). By using religion as a political swing point, these nations have ensured that religion will play an active role in governance. However, the chance to keep the Middle East from delving into divisive religious politics still rests with its people, those who brought about the revolutions that created change in the first place. An important part of the new freedom for this region is realizing that whether the U.S.A. or me likes it, religion will likely have some role, due to its support and place in revolutions. Just as in Poland, religious majorities will shape the politics of these nations for years, but this time the chance to prevent hard-liners is present. As in Egypt, secular liberals and the parties that represent them have taken to the political foray, mostly as a force of contradiction by being the ones that opposed dictators and now religious regimes. But as long as these movements show support and power among the youth that propelled revolutions, there is hope. Should Middle Eastern nations choose a conservative religious stance on issues, they risk forming pseudo-theocracies that isolate minorities and crumble economies. Yet at the same time, as long as secular liberals maintain equal representation along with moderate Islamists, these nations reserve the ability to pursue further freedom from oppression while preventing the deterioration of the countries many know and love. The voices of the liberal youth that began revolutions call out today, and as we listened before we must listen now. As such, I call upon all those in the Middle East to see that while religious freedoms are nice and necessary, their power must be limited to ensure a truly free society. I hope that new freedoms will not overpower the old ones that dictatorships held on to, but rather that new societies will foster greater nations. Until political Islam takes its place as a moderating factor in the region, we must be on our toes. Any imposition could set off years of repression and isolation, followed by the creation of states like Iran. I fear that this may happen, but I also know that it is not impossible to prevent this future. It will all play out through elections, and it is through those elections that I seek power for all those that need it, secularists and moderate Islamists included.
That is all for this post, and I hope my analysis has been complete and clear. If you have questions or comments, post them here, anonymously if you must. My Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ accounts are all still open, alongside my email at zerospintop@live.com. Have a happy Memorial Day, and this is SuperJew McLovin signing off.
This post begins my two part ending to May, wherein I will once again make my opinions known on a foreign and domestic issue. I begin with the foreign issue, as I believe it is much more prominent to more people at this moment. As stated in the title, I intend to embark on a topic many of my friends seem to be confused about; namely, the role of religion in the newly free Middle Eastern nations. Due to populist uprisings and regime changes in the past year or so, much has changed in the region, and new governments will have to respond to wildly different attitudes among the people they rule. This week's quote comes from David Ben-Gurion, the founder of Israel and its first prime minister, a man I consider to be a both a level-headed leader and a hero to the Jewish people during his time.
A big part of why the U.S. has become invested in recent Middle Eastern politics is once again a policy of control, in which we hope to ensure that new leaders are beneficial to us so as to eliminate all possible chances of regional enemies. While this is a policy I strongly abhor, I can see why it is pursued. We typically have few friends outside Israel in the Middle East, and for good reasons too. We've never been popular due to our attempts to exert influence and power in a place that had long deserved it. However, with the Arab Spring completed, many new governments have formed, and the process of careful diplomacy has begun once more. This time, nothing easy will come through, and freedom is going to be the very problem the U.S. confronts when looking for more allies. Specifically, religious freedoms are going to make most political situations with the region quite a bit more complex in the coming years. The best way to explain this is to delve into a parallel, which I take in the form of post-communistic Poland. During the Cold War, Poland was run by Soviet-friendly communist governments that for a time both benefited and satisfied the Polish people. But in the later years, economic stagnation coupled with stricter controls led to popular unrest, eventually igniting a fuse that let the Polish government impose martial law in 1981 (http://www.videofact.com/english/martial_law.htm). By the end of the Soviet period, the Solidarity Union was so popular it gained enough strength to topple the communist regime and restore a democratic nation, which gratefully swept Lech Walesa into power. And as such, new freedoms led to overindulgence by the Polish populace. While economic reforms buoyed the nation, religious reforms made it into one of the most devout ones as well. This occurred because communist governments of Eastern Europe were hostile to organized religion, mostly because it could subvert national strength, although it also was simply a fact of the matter that the further left on the political scale you go the less power religion is typically allowed to have. And so, with new freedom the Poles decided to shove religion into strength just as another expression of Polish nationalism and independence.
This ties in with the modern Middle East because the same situation is playing out, but on a far larger scale. Just like communist Poland, many dictators in the Middle East suppressed full-on religious politics, sometimes to prevent isolating minorities, and other times to prevent subversion of national authority in favor of god. I suppose the best two examples of these are Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak, the leaders of Iraq and Egypt respectively. Hussein typically avoided religious moves in his power structure because he was a Sunni Muslim, a minority in Iraq, and by using his religion he risked drawing lines with the majority Sh'ia population. Had he used religion for control or gain, he also risked disillusionment with his secular Ba'ath party, which he feared would lead Iraqis into the hands of his regional rival Iran, a nation which espouses religious politics consistently. As for Mubarak, he typically prevented religion from taking national jurisprudence because of Egypt's ties to its neighbor Israel. As long as the nation remained tolerant of a Jewish state and avoided inflammatory words, peace and trade could be ensured, buoying the Egyptian economy and world image. Avoiding religious politics also helped Mubarak to retain domestic strength, due to the fact that secular politics allowed a secure police state with pro-business policies that did not discriminate against minorities in the country. However, with the fall of dictators and the institution of reforms, the barriers to religion have been broken, and a flood will happen whether we like it or not.
The key now to preserve peace while also ensuring new freedoms is to take things slowly and prevent religion from taking power along with its freedom. As we have seen in Tunisia and Egypt, strong showings by Islamist parties have made this likely impossible (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2011/10/2011102721287933474.html, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/muslim_brotherhood_egypt/index.html). By using religion as a political swing point, these nations have ensured that religion will play an active role in governance. However, the chance to keep the Middle East from delving into divisive religious politics still rests with its people, those who brought about the revolutions that created change in the first place. An important part of the new freedom for this region is realizing that whether the U.S.A. or me likes it, religion will likely have some role, due to its support and place in revolutions. Just as in Poland, religious majorities will shape the politics of these nations for years, but this time the chance to prevent hard-liners is present. As in Egypt, secular liberals and the parties that represent them have taken to the political foray, mostly as a force of contradiction by being the ones that opposed dictators and now religious regimes. But as long as these movements show support and power among the youth that propelled revolutions, there is hope. Should Middle Eastern nations choose a conservative religious stance on issues, they risk forming pseudo-theocracies that isolate minorities and crumble economies. Yet at the same time, as long as secular liberals maintain equal representation along with moderate Islamists, these nations reserve the ability to pursue further freedom from oppression while preventing the deterioration of the countries many know and love. The voices of the liberal youth that began revolutions call out today, and as we listened before we must listen now. As such, I call upon all those in the Middle East to see that while religious freedoms are nice and necessary, their power must be limited to ensure a truly free society. I hope that new freedoms will not overpower the old ones that dictatorships held on to, but rather that new societies will foster greater nations. Until political Islam takes its place as a moderating factor in the region, we must be on our toes. Any imposition could set off years of repression and isolation, followed by the creation of states like Iran. I fear that this may happen, but I also know that it is not impossible to prevent this future. It will all play out through elections, and it is through those elections that I seek power for all those that need it, secularists and moderate Islamists included.
That is all for this post, and I hope my analysis has been complete and clear. If you have questions or comments, post them here, anonymously if you must. My Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ accounts are all still open, alongside my email at zerospintop@live.com. Have a happy Memorial Day, and this is SuperJew McLovin signing off.
thanks Ben....good reading and well researched opinions!!...i am looking forward to a sports themed blog soon, maybe something like, the role of unions in U.S. sports leagues..(mlb, nhl, nfl and nba)
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading, but like I have repeated there will never be a sports-themed post. That is not the point of this blog, and is not suited to its readership. I appreciate the suggestion, but sorry, the answer is no.
Delete