What will become of Iraq?
Indeed, what will become of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan? The problem with nation building is that it makes two assumptions: (1) That the representative governments found in Western democracies offer useful models for governing human beings; and (2) people coming out from under the yoke of a strongman dictatorship will want to adopt some form of government based on one of these models. I contend that these two assumptions are wrong.
First, the Western democratic models work best in countries where the political and cultural history generates a national consensus that bring human beings beyond the natural tribal level to a recognition that more is better, especially if the majority of the participants speak the same language and share the same goals. This is how we see the extremes of Viking groups coalescing into the Scandinavian countries and the diverse Italian regions coalescing into a one entire if chaotic country. It is also how the U.S. came to be that a country that prides itself in its pioneer spirit and inventiveness but now has been reduced to a number of bickering factions—not quite tribes, but fast approaching that minimal human unit.
There is a whole spectrum from success stories to abject failures among Western democracies, so how useful any one of these might be for these Islamic countries remains to be seen. Even the Indians with their “wannabe British” attitude have a tough time melding their various factions into a country with its act together. Iraq and Afghanistan are experimenting with representative democracy, but it will probably fail there. It will also probably fail in the other Islamic countries that I’ve mentioned as well.
The common denominator for failure has two components that are not mutually exclusive: (1) strong, ethnic groups that have hated each other for a very long time; and (2) more than one predominant religious group in a region where religion is a strong social glue. Afghanistan, for example, is riddled with squabbling tribes. Although blessed with just one religion, tribal identification is stronger than identification with country or religion. While suffering something similar, Iraq also has the problem of multiple religions. Kurds, Shi’ites, and Sunnis just don’t like each other as a result.
Another disadvantage for Middle Eastern countries is the fact that Western democracies are secular. Even Italy, which has always been close to the Vatican, is secular. Moving towards a non-secular society, as Christian fundamentalists would have us do in the U.S., can only stretch the social fabric to the breaking point. Sharia law, of course, is incompatible with a secular society, but many Muslims in countries that have just won their freedom (for example, Tunisia) still want to establish it. There is nothing wrong with either Christian fundamentalism or Sharia law if a society wants to return to the Middle Ages, but neither one is compatible with a modern, technological society.
Technology is based on science and the latter champions the scientific method—religion is based on belief where the scientific method cannot be applied. I’ll state right now that people should be allowed to believe what they want just as long as they don’t infringe on my right to believe what I want. Freedom of religion also means protection for those who choose not to believe. But “state religion” should be an oxymoron in a truly modern society—it’s far from being that throughout the Middle East, including Israel. (Of course, Israel is also just a huge tribe, but one of the tribes of Abraham, and very far from being secular.)
Progressive thought is required for a modern society to make a go of it. Israel has shown that a religious glue is almost enough to hold a society together—most citizens of the country share that common root. Add another sect or religion to the mix and you will have trouble. Even in Israel, the orthodox Jews are often considered parasites—they are exempt from the armed forces and are paid to read and study the Torah. The sects of Islam and Christianity are practiced throughout Iraq Kurdistan where they get along better than Sunnis and Shi’ites in the rest of Iraq. Yet this mix in Kurdistan will spell trouble even if it becomes a separate nation.
Of course, the primary problem Iraq faces, especially if Kurdistan becomes separate, is the centuries-old conflict between Sunnis and Shi’ites. Saddam Hussein was able to control this diverse nation with his strongman tactics—a modern, secular democracy doesn’t have a chance. The same is true in the countries that participated in the Arab spring, either from tribal bickering or religious strife, or both. Sharia is not the answer because not all Muslim sects agree on the Sharia details or their interpretation. In brief, that part of the world, countries become victims to their culture and history.
These countries, even Israel, and now some European ones (the old Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, and Spain, for example) and the U.S., will find it impossible to maintain a vibrant, secular, and modern society. Progressive thought will disappear over time and retrograde conservatism will reduce these countries to feudal states of technological savages playing with the technical toys they buy from the Orient or more developed countries (al Qaeda – no, all terrorists – are living proof of this already, with emphasis on the word “savages”). This is a future I don’t want to see but I’ll bet that Iraq will be the first domino to fall. It’s already happening and I don’t think we can stop it.
You see, nation building is not a solution. You can’t force someone to be something they’re not. Progressive thought must become a priority for a people before they can achieve a true democracy. All this means is that there is a collective desire to move forward. Conservative, fundamentalist thought is either stagnating (a true conservative wants to keep things the way they are) or retrograde (a false conservative or fundamentalist wants to return to what he perceives was a better time).
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe we don’t want to move forward. Maybe this isn’t a desirable goal. I watched a bit of the movie Equilibrium Monday night (my current favorite show Terra Nova was preempted by the World Series—yawn, yawn). Maybe that movie is the way to go. They portrayed a society that prohibits and punishes everything emotional. I saw it as a society where all progressive thought has been squashed. I suppose that the Christian Slater character stands up for progressive thought during the course of the film. I didn’t want to see how it turned out, thinking of the main character in 1984 (a book the film was obviously in debt to, along with Fahrenheit 451).
Back to Iraq and all the countries I’ve mentioned: let me just say to them, “Good luck!” You’re going to need boxcars of it.
And so it goes….
