Pundits have been guessing at the likely outcomes of the “Arab Spring,” recent grass-roots revolutions in key Arab nations that have ousted unpopular leadership in those countries. With this week’s demise of terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden, questions about the end-game for the middle east continue to shift. What will be the eventual outcome? What types of governments will prevail? jmb275 and I were recently discussing these events.
hawkgrrrl: What’s your take on the fact that so many countries have undergone revolutions recently? Do you think this is just the same old unrest or a new change brought on by human evolution and the digital age?
jmb275: Interesting that you coupled human evolution and digital age together. Yes, I think the digital age does play a large role in it. Not only has it been the mechanism for communication, and unification, but it has played a role in broadening people’s perspectives of what is possible. It’s not clear to me how this is coupled with human evolution in a scientific sense, but there may be some causation there, I don’t know. It seems to me that currently, for whatever reason, human beings are becoming more and more convinced that we don’t need authoritarian rulers to lead happy fulfilling lives in orderly societies. We can think for ourselves, act appropriately, and remain safe even if we don’t have someone telling us what we should think and do all the time. In the West this is a mainstay of human thought, but it is clearly spreading to other parts of the world
hawkgrrrl: Do you think people will ultimately demand some form of democracy or do they just want to fight against the current flavor of oppression or replace it with a form that gives their group more power?
jmb275: I think they are demanding a form of democracy because there is evidence that it is successful (even wildly successful). Some have argued that the middle east isn’t “ready” for democracy. I think that’s a bunch of crap. There are certainly downsides to democracy, particularly the oppression of minorities, and a good constitution to guarantee freedom of minorities is essential. I think the better question is whether or not people in the middle east want to allow gov’t to be separate from their religion (an absolute necessity for democracy to work). For that, I’m not sure they’re ready. I have a good friend from a middle eastern country and I’ve asked him this. He loves America, thinks it’s great and often points to our philosophies as what enables our greatness. But in the same breath he will defend an Islamic based gov’t and completely ignore the problems of tying a secular gov’t to a religion.
hawkgrrrl: I’m a little skeptical about the ability of nations to reinvent themselves, especially when they’ve had an autocratic leadership. Those whose experience is entirely under autocratic rule, IMO, begin to get weird, outlandish notions about power. They demand change, but aren’t ready to govern themselves sensibly – they lack the experience and qualifications to do so as much as their leaders do sometimes. Factional grievances are held for a long time, and revolution is a chance for revenge. Opportunistic individuals emerge. Revolutions can start idealistic and end up somewhere else entirely. Or they can start somewhere unpromising and end up with democracy. There were many in the American Revolution who would have been happy to make George Washington the king (president for life at least). Lenin said that the question after revolution was always “Who Whom?” or who would rule over whom? Revolutions are mere riots if no one coherent with a workable strategy implements a new model, and most people capable of that are also capable of Napoleonic ambition.
jmb275: As I mentioned, I think the number one sticking point will be religion. As much as I think they may desire liberty, I don’t think they’re ready to admit a secular gov’t. My impression of Islamic culture is that there just isn’t much room for a separation of church and state. Since most people there are, in fact, Muslim, there would need to be strong constitutional language to protect rights of the minorities. But historically, Islam is not prepared to deal peacefully and justly with those who don’t heed its version of truth. As a disclaimer, if this makes its way into a post, I know I’m generalizing a great deal here and I know all Muslims aren’t like this, particularly those in the U.S. But those I’ve talked to from Middle Eastern countries seem to take a much harder line on many secular issues. Because of the nature of religion and the psychology it brings about, I think religion is the number one stumbling block to a democratic Middle East.
hawkgrrrl: Religion is one heckuva sticking point, though. There’s a big difference between trying to overthrow a ruler who is oppressive and trying to overthrow a ruler whose oppression differs from the flavor of oppression you prefer, one in keeping with your own religous beliefs. While there may be grass roots supporters of democracy, what flavor are the leaders-to-be? While our system keeps power in check, it takes that first leader to allow it to happen or you end up with Napolean Bonaparte instead of George Washington. My guess is that we don’t create a lot of George Washingtons in these cultures.
jmb275: Yeah, I think your skepticism is justified. The American experiment certainly doesn’t seem to be the normal outcome for a revolution. OTOH, I think there are some things to point out. Now that there is an America, a working version of democracy, that, despite problems, is capable of great good and creating wealth and happiness for many, there is a model to work from. The best thing the founders had to look toward was ancient Greece and a whole lot of philosophy. The U.S. would likely bend over backwards to support a democratic outcome to any of these revolutions. Hence, I can’t help but think that the probability of a democratic outcome is MUCH higher now than it would have been 300 years ago.
hawkgrrrl: I certainly agree it’s more likely now, especially with the digital age. More people are going to be predisposed to want it, but the question remains – what will those in power (or those willing to use violent means to achieve their aims) want? What will they allow?
jmb275: Nevertheless, I think we are in agreement here. I think your skepticism is well warranted, I guess I just have high hope that human liberty and justice will prevail.
The downfall of bin Laden who was killed this week in the Pakistani ISI’s backyard adds another dimension to this evolution in the middle east, sort of like finding out Hitler had a vacation home in Langley, Virginia. Will this make it easier or harder for democracy to emerge? Are theocracies and other autocracies more likely to emerge than democracies?
From Ali Soufan, NYT oped contributor and former Guantanamo interrogator:
Many terrorists whom I interrogated told me they expected America to ultimately fold. What they didn’t understand is that as powerful as the Bin Laden idea was to them, America’s values and liberties are even greater to us.
Richard Clarke, oped writer for NYT offers:
Often forgotten amid the ugly violence of Al Qaeda’s attacks was that the terrorists’ declared goal was to replace existing governments in the Muslim world with religiously pure Islamist states and eventually restore an Islamic caliphate.
So what do you think will be the likely outcome in the Middle East? How much unrest before peace? Will democracy prevail or an alternate form of rule (e.g. caliphates)? Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
jmb275 stated: It seems to me that currently, for whatever reason, human beings are becoming more and more convinced that we don’t need authoritarian rulers to lead happy fulfilling lives in orderly societies. We can think for ourselves, act appropriately, and remain safe even if we don’t have someone telling us what we should think and do all the time.
In addition to facing nations around the world, I think this is the fundamental issue facing the Church and it’s prospects for growth. The Church seems to be focusing more and more on telling people what to do, even down to the point of micromanaging how many earrings they have or whether their shoulders show.
There are a whole list of things that you are expected to do to be a “good” Mormon – whether explicit or implicit. People don’t want this. They want the basics – Love God, Love your Fellowman. People want to believe in God. They want to believe in Eternal Families. They want to believe in continuing revelation. They want to believe. They just don’t want micromanagement.
Regarding the outcome: I think there always HAS to be unrest before moving to a different level. We had the American Revolution. France had a revolution to get rid of their kings. Russia had violent changes to get rid of the tsars, and is still working on the democracy thing. China is trying to manage the change, but is becoming more and more democratic. It happens throughout the world.
People fundamentally want to be free. They may be suppressed for a time, but it is the fundamental issue. There are always going to be a few despotic leaders who want to take advantage, but I think it’s going to be harder in the digital age.
And just as pure speculation, assume everyone in the world was connected with their smart phones and iPads and whatever. I think this would eventually lead to a world-wide peace. And if you were John seeing the Millennium in a vision, how would you describe this. Perhaps everyone having a “glass stone” in which all information was available just to look in? Just food for thought.
I’m not sure I agree that everyone wants to be free. People don’t want to be free to starve or to die of exposure. When basic needs are met, then people yearn to be free, but not before.
I was emailing with a friend and accidentally typed ‘The Middle Easy” instead of middle east. We decided it makes the whole thing go down much easier. SO, by official decree, it is henceforth known as The Middle Easy. Branding is everything.
The old adage ‘be careful what you ask for you just might get it’ applies. These Arab nations that are not prepared to manage themselves. Like zoo animals they have been dependent upon brutal dictators for so long, they won’t be able to function in the wild. I see it creating more hostility and more discontent.
Hawk put it best when describing America “It worked as well as it did because of location, culture, resource-independence, and absentee government.” I would add; we were a group of rugged individualists. It was our destiny. Along these lines, and more importantly, it is the will of God. It was the will of God for our nation to be established to gather the tribes of Israel – including the more prolific lost tribes of Joseph – Ephraim and Manasseh. It could not have happened in any other country, or any other time.
Unfortunately for them, the blessing given to Esau ‘by thy sword shall thou live all the days of thy life’ has held true.
today we call them zoo animals. Tomorrow we will call them cockroaches. Then we won’t have a problem exterminating them, because after all who wants to keep around cockroaches….
guys like Will give America a bad name in the world.
I am not convinced that the digital age plays that much of a role — or at least the kind of role — envisioned in the OP. Digital media may let the miserable know they are miserable, but the most miserable don’t have access to media, because you can’t eat cell phones.
Bin Laden was a multi-millionaire before he became involved in terror. Seems to me he didn’t so much want to tear down thrones so much as sit on them. Perhaps he didn’t get that much attention as a 17th son. Who knows.
I do think that people want freedom, but that can rank lower than the desire for safety and survival. What seems to be the trigger of the Arab spring seems to be a spark of desperation caused by the inflation of food prices that has been occurring (primarily because of bad economic policies in the west).
All I know is that the fire is growing, and the new order being born is vulnerable to predators and parasites. And a lot of them are going to be digital geniuses.
Will: Are you serious? This is crazy talk. Zoo animals? This sounds like a trip back in the Twilight zone where Hitler was saying Jews were an inferior race or when blacks were “fence-sitters in the pre-existence” who couldn’t have the priesthood. I thought we’d moved past that. Apparently not everyone has.
Mike,
Holy cow, calm down. It was an analogy I am not calling them Zoo animals. They have been suppressed by oppressive dictators – treated in humane, denied education and forced to rely on the Government for their subsistiance. They are at a distinct disadvantage when compared to the rest of the world – very little capital; very little education; and very few resources to survive on their own. With this said, do you really think they can compete in this fiercely competitive global market? I hope they do, but as an investor I wouldn’t invest in them.
Re Hawkgrrrl
Yes, you’re absolutely right. There must be a measure of safety and basic survival needs met before freedom is desired. But there are fewer people (as a percentage of world population) starving now than ever before. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons freedom and liberty has become so important – they’re not starving as much anymore.
Re Will
The zoo analogy aside, I disagree with your point. By this reasoning I would infer that humans were just wandering around like total imbeciles until someone came along (who? God perhaps) and told them what to do. Humans are capable of thinking for themselves, deciding what to do, and otherwise solving problems. I do understand that a culture takes time to adapt to a new paradigm – I served my mission in Russia and post-communists Russia, trying to embrace capitalism is a bit like putting an infant in front of a computer – nevertheless, I don’t think that’s a reason to deny people the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
#6 – Don’t blame him, Dan. It’s their destiny to be zoo animals.
I think the idea that the longing for individual liberty is inherent to the human condition is not only trite and overdone, it’s simply not true. The very concept of individual human liberty didn’t even exist for most of human history, and people managed to survive and find a way to be happy. I agree with Hawk – if people’s basic needs are being met, I don’t think they’re going to spend their lives longing for democracy. If people are being oppressed and they want to break free of that oppression and choose a different path, I think that should be supported in any way possible. But the idea that we need to somehow impose democracy on people who don’t even know they need it doesn’t really make sense to me.
Re #12
Most humans throughout human history didn’t have large oppressive regimes to dictate what they do. Most humans in more recent history were in small tribes, and in earlier history were simply wanderers and gatherers. Either way, they had maximum liberty.
Also, I think there’s some confusion. Hawk said
Then you said
I thought Hawk was saying that once needs are met, then perhaps people will long to be free. You seem to be saying that as long as basic needs are met there will be no yearning for freedom. If you’re saying that, I definitely disagree. Having basic needs met is first and foremost. But people don’t stand idly by in an oppressive regime just because food is on the table. Russia is a perfect example. Food was on the table, but it was not an acceptable situation.
In either case, I definitely agree with you that we shouldn’t impose democracy on people. I hope I didn’t imply that anywhere (I don’t think I did). Like you, I favor the idea of supporting those who want freedom.
jmb,
that’s highly subjective. I argue that maximum liberty can be best found in an environment similar to our own right now. Wanderers and gatherers of long days past were far more likely to be subject to being eaten by larger animals (or even smaller animals). That tends to end their “liberty”. They also had poor sanitation, also lessening their liberty. If they got sick, they had a greater chance to die early, also crimping their liberty. They were also easier to fall prey to a local warlord taking them into bondage.
#13 – Sorry, jmb, I meant to say “until people’s basic needs are met”. And I did not interpret your comments as advocating forcing democracy or freedom on anyone.
Re Dan
You’re absolutely right. I agree completely. This is why I can’t/don’t advocate anarchism. I think there is value in communalism to some extent.
Note that I’m not comparing our situation to early humans, I’m comparing the Middle East under oppressive regimes to them. My claim is that they will long for liberty because after basic needs are met, too much trampling on individual liberty will cause revolt. Safety, security, and individuality must all be balanced to optimize happiness.
I think you might be totally missing the point of these revolutions. This is really about the “haves” and the “have nots.” Most of the uprisings are from people who have little to no prospects in the near term. No money, no jobs and in some cases, no education. all of the folks I know from those areas (and I know a lot from work) do not view the oppression quite the same way. they work for a large multinational, they make good money, live well, travel outside their country and are free to move around without implemented.
But the lower classes have a lot less money and a lot less opportunity and see their leaders and their families living lives of luxury that does not “trickle down.”
To me, that is the crux of the problem. In the past, uprisings have lead to what is going on in Syria. In Egypt, in particular, the army was more sensitive to the demonstrators than to the government. in Syria, it is the opposite.
Those folks have always seen what the West has that they do not. The digital media allowed them to better organize and keep informed of what they were doing internally and letting he outside world know as well.
Hawk,
“I don’t think that’s a reason to deny people the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
I couldn’t agree more. I wasn’t suggesting they continue to be held captive by dictators. I am just saying, they aren’t going to make it and it is going to lead to more unrest and strife in the Middle East.
The comparison to Russia is a good one, let’s explore that one.
Before it moved to the right end of the spectrum, Russia had (and still has) enormous resources – almost as many as the United States – Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Timber, Iron Ore and Precious Metals. It also has extremely good access to fresh water; proper soil for crops; ample land for crops; and good access to ports. Most importantly, in comparison to the countries we are discussing in the Middle East, it had (and still does) a good education system, a robust military. For Heaven’s sake, it had a space program and had Thermal Nuclear weapons. In spite of this, they struggled making the transition from a leftist regime to a free market economy.
After moving to the right (like China), it has become one of the best economies in the world. Unlike the Countries we are discussing, it can actually produce something besides contention. I hope these countries that have recently seen revolution will succeed. I wish them well; however, the analyst in me says there is no way they will succeed. Not a chance in Hell. It will lead to more contention. It will lead to more fighting. It will lead to more bloodshed. It will lead to the end of times.
Will,
So we might as well kill them now because surely they don’t even stand a chance on their own. Put them out of their misery.
Re Will
Well, perhaps some of this is a difference in perspective in theology. I don’t actually believe the earth will end any time soon (unless we end it with a nuclear war).
Also, I suppose I just have more optimism in people’s ability to overcome their problems. I have a good friend from Pakistan, and if people like him are the future of Pakistan then I have high hope for them.
What seems to be the trigger of the Arab spring seems to be a spark of desperation caused by the inflation of food prices that has been occurring (primarily because of bad economic policies in the west).
A little more as well.
In the 1970s most Arab countries had declining population. Saudi Arabia had years when more people died in car accidents than were born (realizing that born is defined in many countries as a live birth that survives to one year of age).
There were huge improvements in infant mortality. Birthrates did not change, survivial rates did.
Birth rates dropped off after about ten years of the survival increase peak.
That resulted in a huge wave of young people moving through the system. They have overwhelmed the job opportunities and the various social welfare services.
Most of them face societies where the wealth is controlled by oligarchs who also control political/military power.
This is causing extreme social pressures across the middle east, pressures likely to subside in about five to ten years (which is too late and too long for a dictator to expect to ride out).
Where this leads is an entirely different question.
Japan seems to be an excellent example of where the current trends are headed, which is a trend of population growth driven not by births but by people taking longer to die.
Mexico has gone from over 6 children per family to about 2.4 — and realize that is a floating average. I would expect Mexico to have a non-“not dieing” growth rate of less than even (though I would expect their population to continue to grow just as others).
Most of the developed world is following Western Europe into a quasi-post religious age. The implications are interesting.
But to understand the Middle East one must understand the population pressures that are merging with the economic problems, and how they intersect.
Despair, lack of hope and youth are an interesting mix, and they will drive many, many things. Especially despair in an age of television when people start to see television life as “normal” or what they deserve.
Jeff – “Most of the uprisings are from people who have little to no prospects in the near term. No money, no jobs and in some cases, no education.” I think this is half of the story, and an important half. These recent uprisings have been very grass roots, and have a Spartacus flavor them. When the bread & circuses fail, people have little to lose in revolution. The other half of the story in the middle east is that there are many who are well educated and exposed to the west who are still willing to commit acts of terrorism and oppression.
And lastly (in Yogi Bera style there seem to be three halves here), we can’t overlook the role of theocratic thinking in the ME. If it were only haves & have nots, I think there would be a better chance for a good outcome after a long period of unrest that all heads in the same direction – toward more opportunity for all. Add theocracy, and it’s a bit of a crapshoot.
all in all . it seems biblical
Well, it appears we move to the next phase, with attempts by the Iranian axis to turn the anger of the Arab people away from their own leaders and back toward Israel, with coordinated actions to breach the Israeli border by Hamas and Syria, and internal terrorist attacks in both Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
http://debka.com/article/20934/
Well, after Obama’s speech yesterday and the press conference a few minutes ago between the American President and the Israeli Prime Minister, we have a little more insight on what’s ahead in the near term for the Middle East:
Quoting from:
http://www.debka.com/article/20955/
which is a good source of military and security-related issues in the Mid-East,
Netanyahu is one of 12 Mid East leaders saying no to Obama
By rejecting US President Barack Obama’s proposal for Israel and its troops to pull back from the West Bank to behind the indefensible 1967 lines, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu lands in the company of eleven Middle East and North African rulers who spurned Washington’s Middle East policy in the six months of the unfolding Arab uprising. Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak was the only one to keep faith with Obama and he was pushed out for his pains.
Barack Obama’s presentation of his Middle East vision Thursday, May 19 had three immediate results:
1. Every surviving regional leader was confirmed in his determination to keep his distance from US administration policies;
2. Another nail was driven in the coffin of the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process;
3. The fuel that was poured on regional tensions increased the prospects of an Israel-Palestinian or an Israeli-Arab war this year.
The Article notes that the Saudis are now leading a bloc of 8 nations cutting themselves loose from an “oil for security” relationship with the US. Another 4 nations have taken anti-American survive-at-all-cost positions like Syria and Libya.
This does not count countries on the periphery, but vitally important to US security like Pakistan (which just announced the purchase of dozens of Chinese fighter aircraft today out of annoyance with our Laden-hunting) and Iran itself, where A-mad has just made himself Iranian oil minister to chair the OPEC meeting in a few weeks to make oil supply decisions.