Why is no one proposing a grass roots strategy for democracy in the Middle East?

[jackelgull]

I will freely admit I am no expert on the Middle East. But I am rather surprised that for all of its claim to desire democracy in the Middle East the US government hasn't pursued a grass roots strategy yet, empowering democratic organizations in Middle Eastern countries supplying them with resources and other materials necessary.

The only person who seems to be asking for one is Charles Krauthammer, a supporter of Bush's neocon ways.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/02/11/charles-krauthammer-the-u-s-needs-a-freedom-doctrine-for-arab-democracy/

While I disagree with Krauthammer's assessment of Iran's threat in the area, I do feel that supporting democratic organizations and secular parties would be the best way of spreading democracy if that really is the US aim.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Too much desert, hence not enough grass?

 

[Archbob]

Culture, religion, and the male dominance there.

 

[Perfection]

It sets a dangerous precedent of interference with foreign politics.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Presumambly, it would have to be the middle easterners themselves who would talk of this for it to be grassroots?

And how do you know they don't?

 

[luiz]

Yeah the local rulers wouldn't take too kindly if the US started funding opposition parties. And even the general population would probably resent this foreign interference.

And as someone else already said, if there's foreign aid and financing how grassroots can it really be?

 

[jackelgull]

Presumambly, it would have to be the middle easterners themselves who would talk of this for it to be grassroots?

And how do you know they don't?

Yes, I mean that the Middle Easterner themselves would create these organizations, but the US would help these organizations. Seems a better solution than the Iraq invasion.

 

[warpus]

I don't think it'd work because there aren't enough people there who would actually want a liberal democracy in place. But then again in some places there probably are.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes, I mean that the Middle Easterner themselves would create these organizations, but the US would help these organizations. Seems a better solution than the Iraq invasion.

Dude, everything short of shoving the Earth out of orbit into the sun is a better solution than the Iraq invasion.

 

[Tahuti]

Every state is to some extent democratic already: If there was no modicum of consent by the governed, the state would not exist. The people have decided that rising against the government is not worth it and in so doing have decided that the state's authority has their consent. And 'the people' have per ethnic group or cultural group a different set of hierarchy to determine which person is the most powerful. The antonym of democracy is not monarchy, oligarchy or authoritarianism, but anarchy. In Somalia, 'the people' do not rule, since no one rules.

Now, if you mean, why is there not a movement in ME countries for Western democracy? The answer is obvious: Do they want Western democracy? Probably not. Western democracies are at large the product of the mentality of its citizens, not the other way around. No opposition is consent. The US tried doing so in Iraq, and they got rebuffed. Iraqi citizens do not want the kind of 'freedoms' American people value. Prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan, hard drugs could be produced more easily than anywhere in the United States. They have less press freedoms, but press 'freedom' is a fundamentally Western value that however was not a staple of Western governance until since the Enlightenment.

 

[jackelgull]

Every state is to some extent democratic already: If there was no modicum of consent by the governed, the state would not exist. The people have decided that rising against the government is not worth it and in so doing have decided that the state's authority has their consent. And 'the people' have per ethnic group or cultural group a different set of hierarchy to determine which person is the most powerful. The antonym of democracy is not monarchy, oligarchy or authoritarianism, but anarchy. In Somalia, 'the people' do not rule, since no one rules.

Now, if you mean, why is there not a movement in ME countries for Western democracy? The answer is obvious: Do they want Western democracy? Probably not. Western democracies are at large the product of the mentality of its citizens, not the other way around. No opposition is consent. The US tried doing so in Iraq, and they got rebuffed. Iraqi citizens do not want the kind of 'freedoms' American people value. Prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan, hard drugs could be produced more easily than anywhere in the United States. They have less press freedoms, but press 'freedom' is a fundamentally Western value that however was not a staple of Western governance until since the Enlightenment.

They may not want "Western" democracy per se, but it is possible that distinctly Arab democracy can form with many of the same protections as liberal democracies. That is why the movement must be grass roots and from the Arabs themselves. I assume one of those exists. With some support it might just thrive. If the Arab Spring proved anything, it was that there is a hunger for democracy in the Arab world, even if that democracy is not exactly a US democracy.

 

[Tahuti]

They may not want "Western" democracy per se, but it is possible that distinctly Arab democracy can form with many of the same protections as liberal democracies. That is why the movement must be grass roots and from the Arabs themselves. I assume one of those exists. With some support it might just thrive. If the Arab Spring proved anything, it was that there is a hunger for democracy in the Arab world, even if that democracy is not exactly a US democracy.

That would require a major cultural shift in the Arab world. For the same reason you couldn't expect liberal democracy in 17th century Europe.

 

[r16]

it must be 2012 or thereabouts that the US declared a campaign that was run with official State Department channels that saw teaching of evasion , prevention of computer hacking and the like with various other niceties liberal democrats need to overthrow despotic goverments . And still no chance of apologies or the like since the recipients included Turkish Nationals , who were by chance of all Kurdish origin and stuff . It's all there , always there . Democracy in the Middle East would prosper , if one simply removed Washington .

 

[nc-1701]

Well grass roots democracy did happen back in 2011...

Net result was anarchy/civil war in Libya, massive civil war in Syria, a more violent version of status quo in Egypt, and the arrival of ISIS. Only Tunisia seems to have improved at all.

I think it's safe to say that grass roots democracy has so far had far worse consequencesfor the region than Bush's Invasion Democracy(tm).

 

[Virote_Considon]

When the West went into Iraq and Afghanistan, they attempted to help the locals develop democratic institutions which could stand on their own two feet. When the West aided in the ousting and murder of Gadaffi, they attempted to help the locals develop democratic institutions which could stand on their own two feet. When the grassroots, democratic Muslim Brotherhood government of Morsi was swept into power in Egypt, the West supported them to try and help them stand on their own two feet, even while Christians were being massacred daily. When the West supports the al-Qaeda-loving FSA in Syria, it's under the prospect of being able to help them run via democratic institutions on their own two feet.

The West has literally tried what you suggest at each available opportunity; and it has been met with the exact same level of success throughout.

 

[Borachio]

It's a mystery, isn't it?

It's almost like people resent being bombed to bits.

(Don't know what happened in Egypt, though. I don't remember Egypt being bombed to bits. Maybe that was the trouble.)

 

[KevinLancaster]

With the Middle East specifically, it's probably since meddling in the area has made it worse so no one wants anything to do with it anymore even though the crisis in the area requires a response and that regional alliances for economic reasons means that for now it seems that autocrats must be supported. Western democratic nations engaging in conflict in the area doesn't exactly win people there over either, and even if they weren't involved they do not exactly provide the best example with their scandals broadcast across the world, even if their government systems function for the most part, others function just as well or even better it may feel.

For some reason the democracies of the world have never tried to come up with some sort of ad-hoc culture-neutral working democracy manual. I mean, it would make things easier. After all the communists have their Manifesto, and the theocrats their religious texts. It needn't be dogmatic, though there would probably be individuals who would hold it to be.

I think it might be since no one would be able to put anything in it because there would be too much arguing, considering that part of democracy means defending intellectual freedom. Having something out at least for people to read and learn about how modern democracies developed and how they work in the currently in the world and their flaws and giving people the chance to desire to attempt implementing one and improve upon it would be nice, though. Better than democracy by force by a long shot.

The most important thing is that it would need to explain to people how it should work, so that they don't end up with a sham which has too often resulted in the past, and Western democratic leadership too often supported whether out of a desire to be friendly with the government or stupidity. Western democracies also need to make sure their own houses are in order so that they actually can be an example, and be honest, realistic, steady, and fair, much more so than in their radical experiments to rapidly implement "democracy" in the recent past.

Every state is to some extent democratic already: If there was no modicum of consent by the governed, the state would not exist. The people have decided that rising against the government is not worth it and in so doing have decided that the state's authority has their consent.

People choosing not to rise up against a government does not mean that the government has their consent to rule. It can simply mean that they have no choice but to consent. Is manufactured consent really meaningful consent?

 

[Archbob]

In conclusion, there just isn't enough grass there.

 

[onejayhawk]

In conclusion, there just isn't enough grass there.

Make do with hashish.

To the OP, Islam teaches monarchy.

J

 

[r16]

and the whole reason there was this grass roots awakening is simply get the ball rolling , to have a momentum to get the middle classes ask for change and encourage those might be willing to act so that the established order can be shaken and petrodollar extremists can get the war where everybody inevitably slides to extremism .