Hi everyone!
For anyone interested in reading a concise overview of the history of the Muslim Brotherhood and its presence in the Middle East since its founding in Egypt in 1928, I suggest you pick up a copy of this week's The Economist. As is typical of its reportage, the article provides an in-depth though thoroughly readable discussion on how, in the ongoing wake of the Arab Spring, the Brotherhood and its confederates are determining the political direction of the entire Middle East.
Branches of the Brotherhood are present in almost every country in the Arab World. Surprisingly, they aren't necessarily as aligned as one might think. In Egypt's recent elections, the Brotherhood dominated the polls and now make up more than 50 percent of the new parliament. The same is true in Tunisia. In Jordan, the Islamic Action Front (a Brotherhood affiliate) comprises the political opposition and has been dominant in this role for decades. Over in Gaza, Hamas--otherwise known as the Islamic Resistance Movement--was born from a Brotherhood charity. In Iraq, Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Yemen, offshoots of the Brotherhood have been influential in the respective parliaments of these countries. And although the Assad regime in Syria has banned its own Syrian Brotherhood, it has allowed Hamas to run its headquarters from Damascus much to the Syrian Brotherhood's chagrin, although this has changed of late as Hamas has moved out of the country in light of the Syrian uprising and Assad's bloody crackdown.
What the Arab Spring has done is given the Muslim Brotherhood--or Ikhwan as it known in Arabic--genuine political legitimacy. No longer is it a cultish underground organization kept under persecution by the ruling secular elite. As the recent democratic elections in Egypt and Tunisia have demonstrated, the majority of people want a solidly religious (and thereby moral) leadership. It's not really all that surprising when one considers the extent of corruption and graft that were inherent of these previous autocracies. And while the rise of political Islam may not be what the West has hoped for, the Brotherhood--at least for now--is being quite pragmatic in its approach to government.
In Egypt, for example, Brotherhood leaders have attended Coptic Christian religious ceremonies as proof that they support a religiously pluralistic landscape. They have also been vocal in their support of women taking a greater role in government, which has also been true in Tunisia and within Hamas. They have been criticized however for not being tough enough against SCAF, the military counsel that now dominates Egypt's transitional government, and have been accused of discouraging those who have protested for an immediate SCAF withdrawal. But again, this is pure pragmatism. What's important right now--as the Brotherhood has openly stated--is to get society back on track after a tumultuous year that has severely weakened the Egyptian economy and wrecked its tourism industry. It would seem the last thing on the Brotherhood's minds right now is extremist ideology, though of course that is always a concern.
Bottom line: it's simply still too early to determine whether the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East is going to prove an asset or a detriment to the economic and social development of these countries on the world stage. While the West certainly has some cause to be wary, the Brotherhood as it has evolved and will continue to evolve, is not al-Qaeda. It is remarkable that amid all the turmoil in the region over the past year, al-Qaeda has not been a dominant voice, although of late there has been concern that it has infiltrated the Syrian opposition movement. If we want democracy to blossom in the Arab World, we have to withhold judgement and allow things to develop organically, even if an Arab version of democracy does not always align with Western interests.
When you empower the people to speak, you have to listen to what they say. This does not mean you always have to agree. That's the spirit of true democracy.
Ciao.
Showing posts with label Tunisia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tunisia. Show all posts
Monday, February 20, 2012
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Tunisia: Can Islamism and Secularism Peacefully Co-Exist? Why or why not?
Hi everyone!
Can Islam and secularism co-exist peacefully (and productively) in a government setting? I find myself on the fence.
As the Arab world continues to be rocked by change, with predominantly secular-oriented dictatorships falling to the power of the people, more and more of these countries are taking a more Islamist bent. Look at Egypt--more than 65% of its new democratically-elected parliament is comprised of the previously banned Muslim Brotherhood and the hardline Salafist party. Tunisia is now run by a coalition headed by the Ennahda Party which claims it is moderate, yet the recent protests over the airing on Tunisian television of the Iranian-French animated film "Persepolis" give one pause to consider whether secularism is being gradually stamped out. The "Persepolis" uproar is over a scene in the film where God is portrayed speaking in Tunisian slang. A mob attacked the home of the station director and two other men who spoke out in support of him were beaten outside the courthouse in Tunis. Iraq and Pakistan are awash in religious-fueled sectarian violence. The Moroccan government is more Islamist-leaning now than it ever was. And Syria? Well, when Assad finally falls, the government that replaces him is surely to be more Islamist than ever.
Pundits and Middle East experts, as well as government officials in countries dealing with the ongoing transition sparked by the Arab Spring, hail Turkey as an example of a moderate Islamist country where religion and secularism successfully co-exist. But how successful is Turkey really? It's an uneasy alliance at best.
The fundamental problem of course is the fact that these repressive governments were based on a strict secular code that sought to cover over the deeply religious convictions of the people they oppressed. When these governments are overthrown and the people are given a democratic initiative, a knee-jerk reaction is to vote into office governments that represent the opposite of everything the dictatorships stood for. This isn't to say that the people are voting for Islamist parties strictly because they want to merely rid themselves of any and all vestiges of the past, but it makes you wonder. I do believe that it's human nature to go to the extreme when something has been forbidden for so long. I wonder if that's not what we're seeing now in the Middle East.
It also doesn't help that the West is viewed as having given at least tacit support for years to some of these dictatorships. During the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, for example, the U.S. turned a blind eye to the atrocities of the Saddam regime and covertly sold arms and equipment to Iraq because it didn't want Iran to emerge victorious. The U.S. also supported Mubarak for decades despite the regime's well-documented oppression of the Egyptian people because it viewed Mubarak as a stalwart ally on behalf of the Arab world's--albeit uneasy--detente with Israel. The West was hesitant in demanding Mubarak step down because it was unsure of the type of government that would rise up in its place. From the West's perspective, their greatest fears were and are being realized.
So the West now finds itself in a conundrum. The Arab Street is becoming increasingly Islamist though it is indeed occurring as a result of the democratic process. What to do? Democracy only works when all parties are given the freedom of expression. What happened in Tunisia last week gives a lot of cause for concern. Once these new governments have gone through their growing pains, will there be room for a secular minority? The jury is out.
What do you think?
Ciao.
Can Islam and secularism co-exist peacefully (and productively) in a government setting? I find myself on the fence.
As the Arab world continues to be rocked by change, with predominantly secular-oriented dictatorships falling to the power of the people, more and more of these countries are taking a more Islamist bent. Look at Egypt--more than 65% of its new democratically-elected parliament is comprised of the previously banned Muslim Brotherhood and the hardline Salafist party. Tunisia is now run by a coalition headed by the Ennahda Party which claims it is moderate, yet the recent protests over the airing on Tunisian television of the Iranian-French animated film "Persepolis" give one pause to consider whether secularism is being gradually stamped out. The "Persepolis" uproar is over a scene in the film where God is portrayed speaking in Tunisian slang. A mob attacked the home of the station director and two other men who spoke out in support of him were beaten outside the courthouse in Tunis. Iraq and Pakistan are awash in religious-fueled sectarian violence. The Moroccan government is more Islamist-leaning now than it ever was. And Syria? Well, when Assad finally falls, the government that replaces him is surely to be more Islamist than ever.
Pundits and Middle East experts, as well as government officials in countries dealing with the ongoing transition sparked by the Arab Spring, hail Turkey as an example of a moderate Islamist country where religion and secularism successfully co-exist. But how successful is Turkey really? It's an uneasy alliance at best.
The fundamental problem of course is the fact that these repressive governments were based on a strict secular code that sought to cover over the deeply religious convictions of the people they oppressed. When these governments are overthrown and the people are given a democratic initiative, a knee-jerk reaction is to vote into office governments that represent the opposite of everything the dictatorships stood for. This isn't to say that the people are voting for Islamist parties strictly because they want to merely rid themselves of any and all vestiges of the past, but it makes you wonder. I do believe that it's human nature to go to the extreme when something has been forbidden for so long. I wonder if that's not what we're seeing now in the Middle East.
It also doesn't help that the West is viewed as having given at least tacit support for years to some of these dictatorships. During the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, for example, the U.S. turned a blind eye to the atrocities of the Saddam regime and covertly sold arms and equipment to Iraq because it didn't want Iran to emerge victorious. The U.S. also supported Mubarak for decades despite the regime's well-documented oppression of the Egyptian people because it viewed Mubarak as a stalwart ally on behalf of the Arab world's--albeit uneasy--detente with Israel. The West was hesitant in demanding Mubarak step down because it was unsure of the type of government that would rise up in its place. From the West's perspective, their greatest fears were and are being realized.
So the West now finds itself in a conundrum. The Arab Street is becoming increasingly Islamist though it is indeed occurring as a result of the democratic process. What to do? Democracy only works when all parties are given the freedom of expression. What happened in Tunisia last week gives a lot of cause for concern. Once these new governments have gone through their growing pains, will there be room for a secular minority? The jury is out.
What do you think?
Ciao.
Monday, January 16, 2012
One Year On: The Elusive Myth of Democracy in the Arab World
Hi everyone!
After a year now of violent unrest and protests--with the exception of Tunisia--how much has really changed?
Despite the overthrow of the Mubarak regime in Egypt and recent parliamentary elections that more-or-less went off without a hitch, the ruling military council (which was originally intended as a transitional thing) is still pretty firmly entrenched while protests continue, the economy free-falls, and the country is rife with rumors about an increase in the price of fuel beyond the affordability of the average Egyptian citizen, 40 percent of whom live beneath the poverty line.
Over in Syria, the Arab League observer mission is in shambles with less than a week to go as dozens of protesters continue to be killed, wounded, or disappeared. Bashar announced an amnesty yesterday for so-called criminals of the protest movement, meaning army deserters and any protester caught in possession of illegal arms or violation of laws governing peaceful protests. This is the fourth such amnesty, following similar announcements in May, June, and November. No one on the ground takes this seriously.
King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain paid further lip service to Bahraini protesters by saying that his government will be held under greater scrutiny by Parliament; however, Parliament will still be unable to dismiss government officials--usually members of the royal family or their sycophants--it deems unworthy of holding government office. This, protesters say, falls far short of what they are actually demanding--the institution of a full constitutional monarchy.
Meanwhile, in Tunisia, there were reports last week that there has been a five-fold increase in the number of self-immolations timed for the one-year anniversary of the birth of democracy and the self-immolation of Mohammed Bouazizi, the young street vendor whose death ignited the Arab world. According to the BBC, these are mostly poor unemployed young men who have become disillusioned by the continued lack of jobs and government aid despite the installation of democracy.
So I repeat my question: How much has really changed?
I realize of course that in the grand scheme of history, one year is a relatively short period of time. And taking this into consideration, the sweep of the Arab Spring remains impressive. But when all is said and done, what is the true extent of these improvements? For the first time in decades, Egyptians were allowed to vote in free and fair parliamentary elections, though it remains to be seen whether the ruling military council will actually allow the new parliament to draft a constitution and become a truly democratic and functioning government. If the generals don't step down, more bloodshed on the streets of Cairo is pretty much a guarantee. Syria is a mess any way you look at it and heading toward a bloody sectarian war, if it isn't there already. How is this an improvement? And as evidenced by the continued public suicides of unemployed Tunisians, have changes in the government really translated yet to reforms on the street?
At this point, I suppose, there aren't any real answers. We can only wait, watch, and see. Still, it would be a shame if for the millions of people across the Arab world, democracy remains little more than an elusive myth.
Ciao.
After a year now of violent unrest and protests--with the exception of Tunisia--how much has really changed?
Despite the overthrow of the Mubarak regime in Egypt and recent parliamentary elections that more-or-less went off without a hitch, the ruling military council (which was originally intended as a transitional thing) is still pretty firmly entrenched while protests continue, the economy free-falls, and the country is rife with rumors about an increase in the price of fuel beyond the affordability of the average Egyptian citizen, 40 percent of whom live beneath the poverty line.
Over in Syria, the Arab League observer mission is in shambles with less than a week to go as dozens of protesters continue to be killed, wounded, or disappeared. Bashar announced an amnesty yesterday for so-called criminals of the protest movement, meaning army deserters and any protester caught in possession of illegal arms or violation of laws governing peaceful protests. This is the fourth such amnesty, following similar announcements in May, June, and November. No one on the ground takes this seriously.
King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain paid further lip service to Bahraini protesters by saying that his government will be held under greater scrutiny by Parliament; however, Parliament will still be unable to dismiss government officials--usually members of the royal family or their sycophants--it deems unworthy of holding government office. This, protesters say, falls far short of what they are actually demanding--the institution of a full constitutional monarchy.
Meanwhile, in Tunisia, there were reports last week that there has been a five-fold increase in the number of self-immolations timed for the one-year anniversary of the birth of democracy and the self-immolation of Mohammed Bouazizi, the young street vendor whose death ignited the Arab world. According to the BBC, these are mostly poor unemployed young men who have become disillusioned by the continued lack of jobs and government aid despite the installation of democracy.
So I repeat my question: How much has really changed?
I realize of course that in the grand scheme of history, one year is a relatively short period of time. And taking this into consideration, the sweep of the Arab Spring remains impressive. But when all is said and done, what is the true extent of these improvements? For the first time in decades, Egyptians were allowed to vote in free and fair parliamentary elections, though it remains to be seen whether the ruling military council will actually allow the new parliament to draft a constitution and become a truly democratic and functioning government. If the generals don't step down, more bloodshed on the streets of Cairo is pretty much a guarantee. Syria is a mess any way you look at it and heading toward a bloody sectarian war, if it isn't there already. How is this an improvement? And as evidenced by the continued public suicides of unemployed Tunisians, have changes in the government really translated yet to reforms on the street?
At this point, I suppose, there aren't any real answers. We can only wait, watch, and see. Still, it would be a shame if for the millions of people across the Arab world, democracy remains little more than an elusive myth.
Ciao.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
From the Arab Spring to the Russian Winter: 2011 in Review
Hi everyone!
Hard to believe it's the end of another year...and what an eventful year 2011 has been. From an international perspective, 2011 brought about waves of tremendous change: from Tunis to Cairo, Tripoli to Damascus, Benghazi to Moscow and beyond, the world witnessed demonstration after demonstration that affirmed and reaffirmed the power of the individual and collective voice to move mountains and bring about positive change. From the Arab Spring to the Russian Winter, it seemed not a day went by when we weren't greeted with incredible scenes of personal courage spurred on by gross government abuse and corruption.
2011 wasn't a good year for dictators. We saw the demise of longtime Libyan strongman and resident crazy Muammar Qaddafi; the overthrow of Egyptian dictator and Western ally Hosni Mubarak; and the fall of Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. In the midst of all this, we witnessed the deaths of terrorist icon Osama bin Laden and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il. 2011 ended with the largest anti-government demonstrations in Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union and, for the first time in eight years, Prime Minister Putin's iron grip on the Kremlin may be loosening as another round of protests has been called for February.
But there remains a lot to be done. As we count down the final hours to 2012, Syrian President Bashir Assad seems determined to maintain control of his country by any and all means possible. While on the one hand he invites representatives from the Arab League to observe his "compliance" with an international mandate to cut back on the violence with which his government handles the protesters, on the other he sends troops to open fire on peaceful protesters in Hama and Homs a mere two-three blocks away from the Arab League delegation. Innocent Syrian men, women, and children are being mowed down in cold blood while the Arab League observers remark that nothing seems to be out of order. I suppose this isn't surprising when the delegation itself is led by Sudanese General Mustafa al-Dabi who has, no doubt, more than his share of blood on his hands from his work in support of Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir. (Darfur, anyone?)
Unfortunately, things aren't looking so great in Egypt either. The interim military-led government recently launched a series of raids on foreign and domestic NGOs in Cairo, stealing computers and documents and preventing humanitarian aid workers from doing their work. Iran appears to be flexing its muscles again in the wake of threatened sanctions against its banking industry by threatening to cut off access to the Strait of Hormuz, thus disrupting the flow and transport of oil to the rest of the world. North Korea continues to assure the smooth transition of power to Kim Jong-il's youngest son Kim Jong-un, who vowed to continue his government's policy of zero cooperation with South Korea. The future is still up-in-the-air in Russia as well. Will Alexei Navalny and the tens of thousands who support him successfully alter the outcome of March's presidential elections? ... or will they and the rest of the democratic world be sorely disappointed?
And, of course, here in the US we face another election year. Will Obama's sadly underwhelming and arguably rather inept four years in office be awarded another term, or will we see the election of Republican Mitt Romney, who would be the nation's first Mormon president? Next week's upcoming Iowa caucus will officially launch the 2012 presidential race.
Hold on, folks...if you thought 2011 was a wild ride, wait till you see 2012!
Ciao.
Hard to believe it's the end of another year...and what an eventful year 2011 has been. From an international perspective, 2011 brought about waves of tremendous change: from Tunis to Cairo, Tripoli to Damascus, Benghazi to Moscow and beyond, the world witnessed demonstration after demonstration that affirmed and reaffirmed the power of the individual and collective voice to move mountains and bring about positive change. From the Arab Spring to the Russian Winter, it seemed not a day went by when we weren't greeted with incredible scenes of personal courage spurred on by gross government abuse and corruption.
2011 wasn't a good year for dictators. We saw the demise of longtime Libyan strongman and resident crazy Muammar Qaddafi; the overthrow of Egyptian dictator and Western ally Hosni Mubarak; and the fall of Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. In the midst of all this, we witnessed the deaths of terrorist icon Osama bin Laden and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il. 2011 ended with the largest anti-government demonstrations in Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union and, for the first time in eight years, Prime Minister Putin's iron grip on the Kremlin may be loosening as another round of protests has been called for February.
But there remains a lot to be done. As we count down the final hours to 2012, Syrian President Bashir Assad seems determined to maintain control of his country by any and all means possible. While on the one hand he invites representatives from the Arab League to observe his "compliance" with an international mandate to cut back on the violence with which his government handles the protesters, on the other he sends troops to open fire on peaceful protesters in Hama and Homs a mere two-three blocks away from the Arab League delegation. Innocent Syrian men, women, and children are being mowed down in cold blood while the Arab League observers remark that nothing seems to be out of order. I suppose this isn't surprising when the delegation itself is led by Sudanese General Mustafa al-Dabi who has, no doubt, more than his share of blood on his hands from his work in support of Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir. (Darfur, anyone?)
Unfortunately, things aren't looking so great in Egypt either. The interim military-led government recently launched a series of raids on foreign and domestic NGOs in Cairo, stealing computers and documents and preventing humanitarian aid workers from doing their work. Iran appears to be flexing its muscles again in the wake of threatened sanctions against its banking industry by threatening to cut off access to the Strait of Hormuz, thus disrupting the flow and transport of oil to the rest of the world. North Korea continues to assure the smooth transition of power to Kim Jong-il's youngest son Kim Jong-un, who vowed to continue his government's policy of zero cooperation with South Korea. The future is still up-in-the-air in Russia as well. Will Alexei Navalny and the tens of thousands who support him successfully alter the outcome of March's presidential elections? ... or will they and the rest of the democratic world be sorely disappointed?
And, of course, here in the US we face another election year. Will Obama's sadly underwhelming and arguably rather inept four years in office be awarded another term, or will we see the election of Republican Mitt Romney, who would be the nation's first Mormon president? Next week's upcoming Iowa caucus will officially launch the 2012 presidential race.
Hold on, folks...if you thought 2011 was a wild ride, wait till you see 2012!
Ciao.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
The Arab Spring
Hi everyone!
So Syria's President Bashir al-Assad gave an interview with the Western media today defending his response to Syria's prolonged and increasingly bloody civic uprising. He essentially said that he was doing no more than what any government leader would do--specifically the U.S.--as a means of putting down national dissent. This is rich coming from the leader of a country that has at least a half-century history of ruthlessly cracking down on anyone who dares speak out against The Establishment which now finds itself on increasingly shaky territory in a region that has been rocked by unprecedented anti-government turmoil for the last year.
Like many of us, I have followed the so-called Arab Spring with interest though I admit after the initial euphoric months in Tunisia and Egypt I haven't paid as much attention to it as perhaps I should. The civil war in Libya culminating in the death of Moammar Qadaffi was kind of the straw that broke the camel's back for me. It is great that the long-oppressed people in these countries were finally acting out against their oppressors, but the question that kept coming to mind was: "Okay, what now? What plan do these rebel factions have for peacefully instituting a government to replace the one they've overthrown?" It just seemed to me that violence was merely begetting more violence. I believe that while democratic reforms are necessary, I think it is unreasonable and even irresponsible to expect that a region with little to no experience with democracy can be expected to change itself overnight.
I also find the West's response to the Arab Spring interesting in and of itself. In the past week, Egypt has implemented--successfully by most accounts--the first of a three-phase wave of parliamentary elections unlike any the country has ever experienced. This is terrific. However, we must be prepared to deal with the fact that when you give the people a democratic vote, you need to accept whom they vote into office even as the new government may not necessarily fall in line with what you hope to be the final outcome. There is concern being expressed in the media that Egypt's new parliament is weighted too heavily in favor of the Islamists, with the Moslem Brotherhood and the Salafist parties taking the most seats in Egypt's new government. If this is what the Egyptian people want, who are we in the West to say that this is not acceptable? I realize that it calls into question some of the alliances and treaties the U.S. has helped to broker over the years, chiefly the Egyptian-Israeli peace accords, but perhaps it's time for the U.S. and other Western governments to take a step back and focus more on the social and economic problems plaguing our own countries before criticizing or condemning others?
In my quest to learn more about the socioeconomic and political history of the modern Middle East, I came across a recently published book by respected Middle East correspondent and Washington Post columnist Robin Wright. "Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World" (Simon & Schuster, 2011) does an insightful and eminently readable job of introducing readers to the roots of the current unrest. In the book's first couple of chapters, Ms. Wright focuses on how the Arab Spring started--with the self-immolation of a young Tunisian street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi after being accosted by a female Tunisian city inspector who claimed Mr. Bouazizi was operating without a license. Because he was poor, Mr. Bouazizi did not have the seven dollars needed to bribe the official to remain in business. He was humiliated, his livelihood was taken away from him, he didn't know what else to do. So he set himself on fire and this shocking image was soon spread virally through Facebook and YouTube throughout the Middle East. When people feel they do not have a voice, they understandably resort to extreme measures.
While I've only read the first three chapters of Ms. Wright's book so far, I urge everyone and anyone with an interest in learning more about the Arab Spring and its subsequent protest movements to pick up a copy of the book and get educated. By focusing on the plight of the common man and woman and the everyday average citizen, "Rock the Casbah" quickly gets to the root of the issue in a narrative that is compelling and reflective.
Ciao.
QUESTION OF THE DAY: "What responsibility--if any--does the West have in influencing the spread of democracy in the Middle East?"
So Syria's President Bashir al-Assad gave an interview with the Western media today defending his response to Syria's prolonged and increasingly bloody civic uprising. He essentially said that he was doing no more than what any government leader would do--specifically the U.S.--as a means of putting down national dissent. This is rich coming from the leader of a country that has at least a half-century history of ruthlessly cracking down on anyone who dares speak out against The Establishment which now finds itself on increasingly shaky territory in a region that has been rocked by unprecedented anti-government turmoil for the last year.
Like many of us, I have followed the so-called Arab Spring with interest though I admit after the initial euphoric months in Tunisia and Egypt I haven't paid as much attention to it as perhaps I should. The civil war in Libya culminating in the death of Moammar Qadaffi was kind of the straw that broke the camel's back for me. It is great that the long-oppressed people in these countries were finally acting out against their oppressors, but the question that kept coming to mind was: "Okay, what now? What plan do these rebel factions have for peacefully instituting a government to replace the one they've overthrown?" It just seemed to me that violence was merely begetting more violence. I believe that while democratic reforms are necessary, I think it is unreasonable and even irresponsible to expect that a region with little to no experience with democracy can be expected to change itself overnight.
I also find the West's response to the Arab Spring interesting in and of itself. In the past week, Egypt has implemented--successfully by most accounts--the first of a three-phase wave of parliamentary elections unlike any the country has ever experienced. This is terrific. However, we must be prepared to deal with the fact that when you give the people a democratic vote, you need to accept whom they vote into office even as the new government may not necessarily fall in line with what you hope to be the final outcome. There is concern being expressed in the media that Egypt's new parliament is weighted too heavily in favor of the Islamists, with the Moslem Brotherhood and the Salafist parties taking the most seats in Egypt's new government. If this is what the Egyptian people want, who are we in the West to say that this is not acceptable? I realize that it calls into question some of the alliances and treaties the U.S. has helped to broker over the years, chiefly the Egyptian-Israeli peace accords, but perhaps it's time for the U.S. and other Western governments to take a step back and focus more on the social and economic problems plaguing our own countries before criticizing or condemning others?
In my quest to learn more about the socioeconomic and political history of the modern Middle East, I came across a recently published book by respected Middle East correspondent and Washington Post columnist Robin Wright. "Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World" (Simon & Schuster, 2011) does an insightful and eminently readable job of introducing readers to the roots of the current unrest. In the book's first couple of chapters, Ms. Wright focuses on how the Arab Spring started--with the self-immolation of a young Tunisian street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi after being accosted by a female Tunisian city inspector who claimed Mr. Bouazizi was operating without a license. Because he was poor, Mr. Bouazizi did not have the seven dollars needed to bribe the official to remain in business. He was humiliated, his livelihood was taken away from him, he didn't know what else to do. So he set himself on fire and this shocking image was soon spread virally through Facebook and YouTube throughout the Middle East. When people feel they do not have a voice, they understandably resort to extreme measures.
While I've only read the first three chapters of Ms. Wright's book so far, I urge everyone and anyone with an interest in learning more about the Arab Spring and its subsequent protest movements to pick up a copy of the book and get educated. By focusing on the plight of the common man and woman and the everyday average citizen, "Rock the Casbah" quickly gets to the root of the issue in a narrative that is compelling and reflective.
Ciao.
QUESTION OF THE DAY: "What responsibility--if any--does the West have in influencing the spread of democracy in the Middle East?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)