rickyp wrote:The two earliest attempts at democracy by middle eastern nations, apart from israel, were in Egypt and Iran. Both attempts were ended with the intervention of foreign nations.Britain and france in one case. The US in the other.

Sheesh!

Yes, the US (and other Western nations) were certainly involved in the coup that removed the democratically elected Mossadeq in Iran and thus entrenching the Shah's power (and the reaction to that led to the late-70s Islamic Revolution).

However, on Egypt, I think you have a problem.

The Kingdom of Egypt was indeed fairly democratic until the 1950s. However, it would be incorrect to say that France and Britain ended it. If anything, their democracy was assisted by Britain and to a lesser extent France. The Monarchy was fairly powerful, but there were elections for about 20 years.

However, who ended that? The military coup that brought Nasser to power in 1952. By early 1953 political parties were banned, and later the MB became an illegal organisation.

What Britain and France were involved in was the 1956 Suez War, fought against Nasser and with Israeli assistance. It wasn't about ending Egyptian 'democracy' but it was certainly against populist nationalism and the policy of taking over the Canal.

There were elections in Egypt under Nasser and his successors. Presidential elections were pretty much fixed, with Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak usually getting close to 100% of the official votes.

There were parliamentary ballots too, but in those elections the military excluded many candidates and of course the resulting National Assembly was pretty powerless. All of those took place after Suez, and so it's ridiculous to suggest that the Anglo-French action 'ended' democracy in Egypt - The Egyptian military did, and entrenched their power through a one-party state and rigged elections.

danivon

However, it would be incorrect to say that France and Britain ended it. If anything, their democracy was assisted by Britain and to a lesser extent Fran

I over state. Were involved in its endind would be more accurate.... and i could have added Russia, but there would be no hypocricy in that I suppose...

Both the United States of America and the Soviet Union promoted the view that the Egyptian monarchy was both corrupt and a pro-British colonial satrapy, its lavish lifestyle in sharp contrast to that of the Free Officers, who lived in poverty. The propaganda of the two Superpowers completed the image of the Egyptian government as a corrupt puppet of the British.[citation needed]
The Central Intelligence Agency and the KGB through their agents in Egypt promoted the feeling of corruption on the part of several Egyptian institutions such as the police, the palace and even the political parties, and in turn helped coordinate their anti-British and reformist sympathies with the Free Officers Movement.[citation needed]
The loss of the 1948 war with Israel led to the Free Officers' accusations of corruption towards the King and his court and the promotion of that feeling among the Egyptian people.[citation needed]

The Free Officers Movement' was formed by a group of reform minded officers which, backed by the Soviet Union and the United States, coalesced around a young officer named Gamal Abdel Nasser. They used an army general, Muhammad Naguib, as its head to show their seriousness and attract more army followers.

from wikipedia.

danivon

There were elections in Egypt under Nasser and his successors. Presidential elections were pretty much fixed, with Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak usually getting close to 100% of the official votes

Elections don't mean democracy .... sometimes, they are there just to provide a veneer of respectability to the despot.

rickyp wrote:danivon
However, it would be incorrect to say that France and Britain ended it. If anything, their democracy was assisted by Britain and to a lesser extent Fran

I over state. Were involved in its endind would be more accurate....

[bangs head against wall]

Nasser and the Free Officers ended the Egyptian Constitutional Monarchy, and that included sweeping away much of the democratic rights people held up to 1952. Britain and France did not assist that process.

Both the United States of America and the Soviet Union promoted the view that the Egyptian monarchy was both corrupt and a pro-British colonial satrapy, its lavish lifestyle in sharp contrast to that of the Free Officers, who lived in poverty. The propaganda of the two Superpowers completed the image of the Egyptian government as a corrupt puppet of the British.[citation needed]
The Central Intelligence Agency and the KGB through their agents in Egypt promoted the feeling of corruption on the part of several Egyptian institutions such as the police, the palace and even the political parties, and in turn helped coordinate their anti-British and reformist sympathies with the Free Officers Movement.[citation needed]
The loss of the 1948 war with Israel led to the Free Officers' accusations of corruption towards the King and his court and the promotion of that feeling among the Egyptian people.[citation needed]

The Free Officers Movement' was formed by a group of reform minded officers which, backed by the Soviet Union and the United States, coalesced around a young officer named Gamal Abdel Nasser. They used an army general, Muhammad Naguib, as its head to show their seriousness and attract more army followers.
from wikipedia.

I love the way that you quote a piece from Wikipedia that is littered with '[citation needed]'. If it has references, I'll take it with a pinch of salt, but when there's none, it's just opinion.

So now we get a completely different picture. The British helped prop up the Egyptian Monarchy but also helped create its nascent democratic structures. I can see that the US and USSR might (separately), oppose that in the hope of gaining support and on principle, but these are unsourced allegations of propaganda that even at face value seem to show that it wasn't France or Britain 'involved' at all.

Sure, the leaders of the Free Officers led frugal lives as middle class and middle-ranking soldiers. How big of them. And sure, the monarchs were rich guys with lavish lifestyles. So are most European Monarchs, even in countries regarded as paragons of democracy (with the exception of Belgium, pretty much). That doesn't mean much when it comes to how democratic Egypt was, how it ended, and who did the ending.

danivon
There were elections in Egypt under Nasser and his successors. Presidential elections were pretty much fixed, with Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak usually getting close to 100% of the official votes

Elections don't mean democracy .... sometimes, they are there just to provide a veneer of respectability to the despot.

Quite. That was my precise point - post-1952 Egypt's elections were indeed just that. But your suggestion that this was down to the British and French is laughable.

However, the fact that they were held, and being a hangover from the more democratic 'Kingdom' period does give us one thing:

Egyptians were used to periodic elections, even if they knew that they were fixed by the military dictatorship for the past 50 years. Before then, there were the more open and free elections that meant that the Wafd party (which opposed the policies of the Monarchs) was popularly and as far as I can tell fairly elected.

Don't you think that might be a little more significant than esoteric points about 7th Century Sunnah Caliphates?

danivon

I think there's a distinction to be made here - the Caliphs were successors on political and administrative matters

The position of Caliph was both political AND spiritual til 935... For Sunnis.And when it was their guy, for Shia.

danivon

I think we can safely say that your claims about Ijma were no less wrong than mine - you implied it was democratic.

I suggested that the tradition means that its practitioners were open to the concept of democracy,...
Encouraging open debate and consultation is the basis for understanding that anothers ideas must be considered.
Its worlds away from a tradition of, for example; complete obedience to one's elders or betters. , complete obedience to a strict code inteerpreted only by a singular power heirarchy...
Its "conditioning" people culturally....
The resulting continuing debate over what something may or not mean, witness

That's the point - Muslims, even Sunnis, even Sunni Scholars, can't agree what 'agreement' means in practice.

is a pretty good indication that authority can and will be challenged .
And thats a good start for a society that seeks to attain democracy.

Danivon

Britain and France did not assist that process.

Well, no I guess not overtly. However
Britains continued occupation of the Suez was a constant irritant for nationalists. Farouks inability to expel the British was a major reason he lost support. That, his oppulent lifestyle and the loss of most of Palestine ti Israel.
The US and Russia, both wanted a changed status in Egypt. And they agitated against the King.
The CIA had a scheme known as Project FF (`Fat Fuc`) to overthrow King Farouk.
This plot was initiated by CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.. Whether or not that was the actual plot has never been revealed ....

First signs of trouble begins in late 1951 and early 1952 over British control of the canal zone. Nationalist police officers, with the support of the United States (CIA) and the Soviet Union, formed fedayeen groups which attacked British shipping facilities near Ismailia. Several British soldiers, officers and seamen were killed.
The British retaliated and sought out the commandos in local police barracks in Ismailia. The police refused to give up the commandos, so the British used a negotiator to get the police and commandos to surrender. However, the negotiator was killed by the fedayeen and the British spearheaded an assault on the police headquarters at Ismailia, which resulted in the killing of more than fifty Egyptians

.

Now, was this British reaction a cause the monarchy fell...yes. Was it assistance to the revolution no.
I stand corrected. Lets blame the CIA for egypt and Iran,

I'd ask you to support that by demonstrating a couple of nations where Islam is the primary reason for a lack of democracy. I think you'll find the reasons for authoritarian regimes have little to do with Islam...

wow, just wow!
here's an easier request, how about you point to where we have a solid working real democracy in a Muslim country. They do not exist because the two (at this time in history) simply are not mutually compatible, maybe some day they will be, for now that certainly is not the case.

Tom. Indonesia. Now, please answer the question I asked when you dismissed the largest Islamic nation on the plamet - how is it so different that you refuse to count it?

Malaysia. The Malaysian constitution guarantees freedom of religion while making Islam the state religion.
,Azerbajian is not entirely free, since there is a question about how free and fair its eelctions have been,. The Constitution of Azerbaijan does not declare an official religion, and all major political forces in the country are secular nationalist, but the majority of people and some opposition movements adhere to Shia Islam.
Turkey. Espcially Turkey. Where governments have handed over power after losing elections. (The truest test of democracy)

http://www.asianewsnet.net/news-39634.html
Indonesia is a democracy and it is functioning but didn't I ask for an example of a "solid working real democracy"?
Indonesia is your answer?

Malaysia?
http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/ti ... moment/71/

Yep, both are "solid" Democracies!?
and a democracy in the Arab world????
Islam is even more control in that region we are speaking of, but Islam in general simply can not nor will not (at this time) allow for a "real" democracy. I'm actually surprised you didn't use Iraq under Saddam Hussein, after all, they had supposed "free elections"?

You said Muslim, now you change to Arab. Moving the goalposts much?

And I still don't see you explaining yourself, just expressing incredulity. Pish

who moved anything?
I didn't change a thing I said, I did say the Arab Muslims were far worse but never backed off the original statement.

If I stated drinking alcohol can get you drunk.
Then stated grain alcohol will do so faster does not mean drinking girly drinks won't eventually get you there as well.

what is their to explain?
Pish????
You have not shown any "solid" democracies in the Muslim world, you point to a couple that are tenuous, did you read the links? I suppose you support that sort of "solid" democracy? Yes, it sure beats many alternatives but it doesn't make it all that good either now does it?
Pish back to you for failing to explain your position and how these are such stand-up countries, It's far easier to say "pish" and dismiss the facts now isn't it?

Tom, the democracies noted aren't perfect. Noted.
Is their imperfection a direct result of Islam?
You blame the lack of democracy in the Middle East on "

Too many Islamic nutjobs

".
Please demonstrate how it was Islamic nut jobs that colonized the middle east as part of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years, or as part of the Huns empire before that... Or after the fall of the Ottomans how is was Islmaic Nutjobs who colonized . (This will be tough as the colonizers were European).
Explain how it was Islamic nutjobs who ended the originally democratic experiments in Iran and Egypt.
See, your theory is that somehow it is uniquely Islam that is the stumbling block... The historical record points to the establishment of authoritarian regimes that sustained their regimes, extracting wealth and power for a small elite group. Not because of Islam, but for their own benefit.

Further, you complain that the democracies we point to aren't perfect. At what point did the original modern democracies become perfect.? Did the US become democratic after 1776 or 1793 ? Even though millions were in bondage? That slavery existed, strikes me as imperfect.
Or in 1920 when the constitution was amended to finally enfranchise women? Or in the 1960s when the civil rights movement finally delivered the promise of the constitutional liberties to an entire race? Or maybe there are still ways that the US institutions aren't democratic perfection? (Gerrymandering, election finance laws, legislative rules that deny democratic expression. etc.)
I submit that once a country has made a commitment to democracy, it is only the first step in a long evolution. That is clear that the nascent Middle Eastern countries have a long way to go,
However, the establishment of democratic institutions, and the peaceful turnover of power,however imperfect the democracy, is the clearest signpost that democracy has taken root and will evolve. And the Islamic nations we noted, plus Pakistan, are on that road. And yet, surprise, they are Islamic majority countries, and indeed a couple have Islam as the state religion...
Clearly, you have not demonstrated that Islam is in any way an impediment to democracy.
Either in the past, or currently.
Religions have been used by despots to help manage the populace. (Hell, that was the original reason Christianity became Romes state religion). And Islam has, and is being used this way. Saudi Arabia being the best example. However, that isn't the religion, its the Sauds application of it to maintain their feudal system. .
One could make the same case for the crazy nutjob catholics, who maintained the feudal system in Europe for so long. religion can be a useful tool. However, its clear that there are Catholic countries today that are modern democracies... So it wasn't the religion that kept feudalism...
This discussion had as its genesis the characterization of Morsi in Egypt as a dangerous "nutjob" to borrow your term. I am certain that his view of a perfect society is different than yours, or most western people. However, a careless characterization based on the barest understanding of he, his countries past, or its culture isn't in any way reasonable.
After the events of 9/11, George Bush declared that the reason terrorists attacked was, "They hate our freedoms". Those kind of bumper sticker sayings and the way they satisfied a major part of the populace lead to the great disaster that was the Iraq war and a lot of failings in fighting the small cadre of terrorists that actually existed at the time.
Similarly, characterizing major political actors in the Middle East as "nutjobs" and blaming a a characterture of Islam for the lack of democratic development in the region or in Islamic countries generally.
Indeed, the major reasons for the lack of democratic development are: Invasion and occupation, colonization, the establishment of authoritarian regimes after the last periods of colonization in order to maintain economic extraction by the former colonists, and direct intervention by foreign powers in maintaining those authoritarian regimes. (US, Russia, Britain, etc.) If Islam played a major role..... no one has mentioned exactly how. Especially not you.
Now that the average Egyptian, Tunisian etc., have achieved the first steps on the road to democracy - suddenly, for some, Islam is either a barrier or a threat.... As if none of the history actually happened. And as if, the historical track of democratic evolution was not well understood.
Its so much easier to have a simplistic characterture.

Jordan and Morrocco are both Islamic countries... Fareed Zakkaria notes the following today:

The Arab world’s two largest experiments in democracy, Iraq and Egypt, have, unfortunately, poor choices in common. Both placed elections ahead of constitutions and popular participation ahead of individual rights. Both have had as their first elected leaders strongmen with Islamist backgrounds who have no real dedication to liberal democracy. The results have been the establishment of “illiberal democracy” in Iraq and the danger of a similar system in Egypt.

The best role models for the region might well be two small monarchies. Jordan and Morocco have gone the opposite route, making measured reforms and liberalizing their existing systems. The monarchies have chosen evolution over revolution. So far, it seems the better course

.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z3

Its worth looking at the establishment of the first democracies and those that went through tumult versus those that evolved in fairly orderly fashion. But even those that went through periods of tumult eventually evolved..

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-april-1-2013-mary-roach

The first segment (opening monologue) is brilliant. Glass houses and stones type stuff.

bbauska wrote:http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-april-1-2013-mary-roach

The first segment (opening monologue) is brilliant. Glass houses and stones type stuff.

Excellent. Thx.