The Developing and Deepening Conflict
Host: Farhad Saba

Potential for Democracy in the Middle East

(Farhad Saba) Christer: A warm welcome to you. I am delighted to learn that you will be following this discussion.

I agree that US presence in the Persian Gulf will have far reaching effects throughout the Middle East. I hope a solution to the Palestinians’ plight would be one outcome.

I also believe that people in the Middle East will warm up to democracy faster than what we think. They may not be able to develop institutions (e. g. formal political parties) overnight, but I am yet to meet anyone who doesn’t like freedom.

(Participant) Fred: Building on Kip's comment and staying with "The Developing Conflict" theme, I would be very much interested to hear from you how Bush's (recent) vision of using post-Saddam Iraq to spread democracy throughout the Middle East sounds to people, and regimes, that live there.

It's hard to believe the Arab regimes are welcoming the idea, since it would presumably mean the end of legitimacy, and perhaps life, for many of the various kinds of Arab monarchs--or for the ruling clerics of Iran, or even for the vaguely Islamist, semi-secular boss in Egypt.

But even if many Americans would applaud the end of most Middle East regimes, isn't there a prospect that their successors, even if voted into office, would turn out to be hardline advocates of Islamist governance, like the Algerians who won elections a few years back? Is there a form of Islamist governance that wouldn't result in another pyramid of oppressive power?

What does democracy mean as a principle applied in that part of the world? The kind of "reform" suggested by the outcome of recent Iranian elections, where women's aspirations seem to have been a major element in the electoral results, struck me as a healthy sign, even though the large electoral majorities may not yet have broken through the crust of clerical control of the main instruments of power.

Democracy is of course far more than elections; it implies a strong "civil society," civilian control of the military, the development of millions of entrepreneurs, women's liberation, universal education, etc., etc. Is there a scenario that leads in this direction--a vision that people in the region, and those of us living elsewhere who wish them well, should hold in their, and our, heads?

(Farhad Saba) Harlan: As a moderator, I am not sure to what extent I should present my views. But since you asked, here are some comments, and I am afraid this post is going to be a bit long.

A generation or so ago I was in Iran, when US advisors to the Iranian government of the Shah asserted that the country needed a more "open political atmosphere." This is almost an exact translation of the Farsi phrase they used at the time. The problem was that the concept was never defined. It was one element that helped in bringing the current regime to power. The political atmosphere was so open, by the end of the regime of the Shah, that anyone, including the ayatollahs that never had any experience in running a country, could take over; and they did.

I am afraid some US policy makers are making a similar mistake in the case of Iraq this time by using the word democracy, which has a specific meaning in the Western tradition.

There is no doubt in my mind that the people of Iraq will embrace the freedom that will be afforded to them after the war. I hope the planners for the post-war Iraq, however, look into the local traditions for models of transitioning from absolute dictatorship to an ideal democracy. Of interest would be the local tradition of consensus that goes back centuries ago. Neither a Western style democracy nor a political system based on more familiar local traditions, however, will guarantee that a dictator will not emerge.

Having observed the political situation in the Middle East for close to half a century (you grow up fast in that part of the world. By the time I was ten years old, I was fully aware of what was going on) I have come to the conclusion that emergence of dictators is not a function of the political system of a country. It is a function of foreign interference with the economic system –an overzealousness on the part of the international corporations and financial institutions (The World Bank, and IMF) to "modernize" the country by selling goods and services that it really doesn’t need.

People, after a major upheaval, have a tendency to go slow and develop at a pace that they can understand; while International economic entities impatiently force huge loans, and other goods and services on them that they cannot consume. Dictators emerge to get these resources and put them in their own personal Swiss bank accounts, because they see that billions of dollars are going to waste!

The political system, whatever it might be, must be balanced with an economic system that grows at a patient rate commensurate to the ability of the local shop keeper, and not the Iraqi MBA from Harvard. It also has to be tempered with a judicial system that is truly independent and separate from the government.

Reports from Kabul are very encouraging that shops and restaurants are emerging, and small businesses are thriving. I hope Afghanistan would become a model for such people-based economic growth.

(Farhad Saba) Raymond: Referring to 1:49, I agree with Dr. Muller that there are two superpowers in the world; the United States and "the merging, surging voice of the people of the world." What I don’t understand is why he thinks that the "people" are waging peace. Is he living in the same world as I am? Can you, or anyone else explain his position to me?

I think the major conflict of the future, which probably has already begun (World War III if you will), will be between the powerful and powerless (those people who are blessed with democracy and those who are powerless in their own country–an irony of history and human behavior); as well as the rich and the poor.

(Participant) Neoconservative: I wish someone would come up with a better name. I don't see anything "conservative" about the positions attributed to them by you, Dick.

Muller, and "waging peace": I think, Fred, that "waging" in this context draws on the definition "to do battle" or "fight", or even "to work at, strenuously". I'd say this characterizes the efforts of large numbers of people over the last few months.

I agree with you that the major conflicts of the future will be between the "haves" and the "have nots" of the world. I expect that may be true of political conflicts within individual nations, also--including this one.

Better, I suppose, that conflict between religious extremists, but that's not saying much.

(Participant) Ray, I think neoconservatives refer to themselves by that term. They are all former traditional conservatives, as I understand it.

To put a number to the difference between the haves and the have nots in war, the American defense budget is four hundred billion, Iraq's is one and a half billion.

(Participant) And, Dick, that ratio--400 to 1-1/2--is relevant to what?

Iraq is the size of California, or so I hear.
Iraq is not protecting South Korea.
Iraq has no obligations within NATO, nor in Afghanistan, nor in Kuwait, or in Saudi Arabia, etc.

Need I go on?

(Participant) Ray, I thought you were calling attention to the next wars being between the haves and the have-nots. The US/Iraq war is such a war, and the numbers are so wildly different that I thought it illustrated your point.

I don't disagree that our defensive needs are greater than most other nations. But we do have a defense budget larger than the combined defense budgets of the next fifteen nations. Doesn't that seem a bit outsized?

(Participant) There is seldom in a war an opportunity to end it in a way that would be "best" for both antagonists. But in this one, Bush has been stressing how we plan to benefit life in Iraq largely at our expense.

In other words, the sooner we stop the shooting, the less the war will cost us and the less will be the cost of repairing the damage. For the citizens of Iraq, the less will be the damage and loss of life and the sooner a return to peace.

Saddam seems to have moved off stage--either because of death or injuries or for mysterious strategic reasons.

Wouldn't this be a good time to declare an hour's cease fire, and an invitation to talk peace?

(Participant) Thanks for that history and analysis, Fred.

With such a history, and with a country not at all unified, can democracy grow? Won't the government America puts in place (if indeed it works out that way) be exercising a strong military hand to suppress internecine warfare, and revolts against us? You seem to convey that the people will welcome an attempt at democracy. Russia has had a terrible time of that.

(Participant) For those who have the time, I recommend downloading both Douglas Carmichael's message in COMMENTARIES, as well as his reference (with URL) to Norman Mailer's article ONLY IN AMERICA. Both articles are far from mainstream thinking, but they both touch issues of importance when the war is over. (COMMENTARIES is a section on the ILF menu when you first log on.)

One particular question to be addressed is: how strongly should "democracy" be pushed as the sole government alternative for Iraq? I would imagine that the stronger we push at the start, the less acceptance we can expect. Or to put it another way, until we get pressure from the Iraq participants to consider democracy, the greater the need for us to listen rather than teach. I hope Fred will address this amateur's suggestion.

(Participant) We talk about instituting democracy in Iraq, but there will be certain conditions that we will insist upon. So it will be a "democracy" within a rather puzzling framework, because the main conditions we will impose will not be at all what the Iraqi people will want. For example, the US will insist that the new government recognize Israel. That will be something of a turnaround. We will nix any effort of the Shi'ites to institute anything like a theocratic democracy, such as Israel has, even though they are clearly the majority. We will also insist that the US private sector play a major role in the future of the country. I'm sure we have a design we are confident that the group we assemble will eventually accept, even if the people don't. That's Jay Garner's job.

(Participant) Two of my favorite columnists, Richard Cohen and Paul Krugman, came out this morning with columns calling attention to the string of misleading statements from the administration (I'm not calling them lies) about, among other things, the existence of a nuclear threat from Iraq. Krugman questions whether we have a democracy if, indeed, a democracy is built upon the desires of an informed citizenry. They both decry the fact that the people were dealt a bad hand by the deception.

It is even more serious than that. The worst victims of deception are not the deceived, but the deceivers. By repeated successes in fooling us, they become blind to our strengths. Psychological research shows that when people are successful in fooling others, their respect for the fooled erodes, and even if the persons are behaving very intelligently, the deceiver doesn't see it. Eventually, the deceiver's respect for people in general can erode. That is a real danger for democracy, when those people are our leaders. We want our leaders to have increasing respect for our potential. Of course, if democracy fails, then we all fail.

(Participant) It's difficult to imagine a fundamentalist Shi'ite democracy. Sounds like an oxymoron. I may be misunderstanding their position, but I have the impression that they are exclusionary (no Christians, no Kurds, etc.) Doesn't a democracy (as opposed simply to majority rule) leave room for others to participate equally?

(Farhad Saba) A few words about oil

In our current conference, our discussion has ranged from the potential of democracy in the Middle East to the structure and mission of the UN, and how the press covers international events. In some messages, we have implied that access to oil has been a major motivation for the current US military venture into Iraq.

I would like to provide a perspective that I am sure will not be considered by any "sane" government in the oil producing Middle Eastern country, but I will present it here any way. I think this forum is a good place to present this "insane" idea :

It is highly unlikely that I would be asked to become the absolute ruler of Iran, or even if offered, I would accept the position. For one thing, the position offers no promotion. But, in the highly unlikely event that I would rule the country with absolute power, I would close down all the oil fields in Iran and ban oil exports. This is not to invite the US military in the country! I am sure if I do this, and survive an internal coup, a coalition of the willing will depose me.

This would be to offer the people of Iran to develop a healthy life. Right now, people in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other similar oil producing countries live very unhealthy lives. Their governments extract and sell oil and collect the revenues. The income, then, is distributed among the people through those who work for the large government bureaucracies. Government workers receive a salary based on the oil revenue, and infuse the money through the economy by purchasing goods and services. Such goods (e.g. food) and services (e.g. telecommunications) are generally imported and have no base of production in the internal economy of the country. How well am I depicting how sick these economies are?

Oil revenues have ruined the economies of oil producing countries. When I was in elementary school in Iran (about 45 years ago) the country was a net food exporter. Over the years, oil income has brought imported food as well as consumer goods to the country and basically has eliminated any incentive for people to produce anything. The highest aspiration of young people is to become a government paper pusher. Other ventures are not rewarded.

In recent times, there were two genuine attempts to direct the oil revenue of the country towards building a productive infrastructure for the country (e.g. roads, factories, schools, telecommunications, etc.) and eliminate it as a source for welfare. The first time a prime minister (Mohammad Mossadegh) closed down the oil industry and asked people to engage in productive endeavors. This was also to force the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company that had monopoly over the oil industry to leave Iran. John Foster Dulles panicked, called brother Allen and told him that we need a strong government in Iran to stop Soviet expansionism. We cannot allow Mossadegh to experiment with oil and politics. There was the infamous CIA coup in Iran in 1951, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was saved, and the Shah was allowed to keep his throne.

The second time, the Shah himself went "insane" and insisted on using the oil revenue for building the infrastructure of Iran (this is when I was given 50 million dollars a year between 1973 to 1978 to build a nationwide educational radio and television system for Iran). Like 1951, his attempt was a double edged sword. It irritated the oil companies. Such irritation coupled with Zbigniew Brzezinski's plan to establish an Islamic belt from Turkey to Afghanistan to destabilize the Soviet Union led to deposing the Shah and establishing the Islamic Republic. I am sure you have noticed that in the last 25 years oil companies have never complained about Iran.

This time in Iraq, there is no Soviet Union, and the West can establish a rational policy toward oil in Iraq. Its revenue should only go to building the infrastructure and NOT for the current revenue of the government. People of Iraq should be taxed. They may complain, but they feel some ownership in their government, and the government would become responsible toward tax paying people too. It also will make people productive and not reliant on "free" oil revenue.

We should end the West's addiction to cheap oil, and the addiction of the people of oil producing countries to the oil revenue, which has made a bunch of useless paper pushers, drug pushers, prostitutes, and worst out of them. Otherwise, we will have to confront millions of young people who see no productive lives in their future. They can easily be duped to become terrorists.

I have summarized 50 years of history into a few paragraphs. I hope it makes sense.

(Participant) Fred: You are a great history professor. I wish I had as good when I was a student at Harvard!

Re: democracy in the Middle East (let me try my hand at being a professor on what I imagine I know about this ):

No democracy will work or persist ANYWHERE unless it is constructed and installed in large part by the future citizens. Foreigners can help ONLY if genuinely requested to do so--and will promise NOT TO CLONE WHAT THEY HAVE BACK IN THEIR HOME.

(Participant) Dear Fred,
I wish to echo Don's comments on your "history lesson". I am more familiar with the oil situation in South America but your "history" seems applicable there also.
I was interested in your remark on new technology for teaching and learning
which is where my current interests are as we work with the Indian tribes
in Oregon to set up a "distance learning" educational system with them. Would like to talk to you about this by e-mail off line. Doug Strain 

(Farhad Saba) Douglas: Thanks for your kind remarks and interest in distance learning. I publish a free newsletter that you can receive via email. It contains recent news, information, resources, government and legal developments, as well as technology about distance teaching and learning. You can subscribe to it by visiting http://distance-educator.com. We have thousands of loyal subscribers, and they are growing by the hour.

(Participant) Some 30 years ago--I forget when, where, or what circumstances--I overheard some business leaders talking about oil policy. They said two things that stuck with me:

1. The US should shut down domestic production and import all the oil it can get, saving what we have in the ground for the time when we won't be able to get it anywhere else.
2. The oil producing countries, if they were really smart, would price their oil just low enough to keep us from doing intensive research into alternative sources of energy.

Of course I subscribe completely to Farhad's "insane" policy.

Dare I suggest once more how the influence of major oil producers rests on the foundation of our election financing system?

(Participant) Fred, I’ve been thinking about your comment in re: halting oil production and the need for the mid-east countries to become more self-sufficiently productive, less reliant upon their governments to provide for them from the oil revenues. I wonder what, really, would happen if Iran or Iraq or Saudi Arabia were to halt oil production? Am I correct that Jordan, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt and several other countries suffer the same difficulties as Iran and Iraq even though they don’t have the same oil-subsidized economy? In recent years China and India have made great strides in moving from a relatively non-participatory role, in terms of their global presence, to a highly participatory one. Do you have a sense of what prevents the non-oil-subsidized mid-east countries from moving into a more substantial participation in the global economy?

(Farhad Saba) Raymond: I am sure we need a more rational system of financing elections. More and more people find themselves left out of a process that has become a club for the rich and the famous only.

In recent years, we have seen amazing stories of foreign sources infusing incredible amounts of money into the presidential elections. There is no doubt in my mind that the Seven Sisters are major players in this game.

(Farhad Saba) Kip: You are absolutely right in observing that to the point that China and India can develop a free economic system they will be more effective in creating meaningful jobs, and lives for their people.

In the last 50 years, almost all developing countries--even the Shah’s Iran-- established a top-down centralized system of economic development patterned after the Soviet Union. Those that had income from oil, such as Indonesia, became more dependent on a centralized economy. They were much slower to develop their entrepreneurial institutions than China and India.

Jordan and Egypt receive subsidies from Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, and the United States to the tune of billions of dollars a year on a regular basis. We now know that Syria was receiving very inexpensive oil from Iraq, too. Syria, however, is in a very unstable situation. It used to be subsidized by the Soviet Union. That’s how it became the operational center of international terrorism.

Pakistan has no natural resources. The problem there is that Islam is its reason for being. It is a special case with many problems; two of which are that it is infested with terrorists, and it has nuclear weapons. There cannot be a separation of church and state in Pakistan, and its problems have to be considered as a unique case.

(Participant) Fred, thanks for that information. It seems to me important to know these facts about those countries.

Do you think it is possible, in any realistic sense, that these countries will be able to develop, over the next 20 years, a free economic system that will be more effective in creating meaningful jobs, and lives for their people? By realistic I mean to suggest that halting oil production in some and thus cutting off the subsidies to the others is most unlikely to happen. How big an impediment is the Islamic religion itself to the development of societies that are better able to compete and cooperate with the rest of the world? As an outside observer it appears to me that the religion as practiced today renders such a possibility remote at best--but I don't have a very substantial sense of the mood or the angst of the peoples.

(Farhad Saba) Kip: I firmly believe that if the governments in Egypt, Syria and Iran, and many other countries in the region for that matter, leave the people alone they will be able to develop viable businesses as they have done in the past 6,000 years off and on. The irony is that despite these governments choking every possibility for them, people succeed in many situations. The problem is that these entrepreneurial initiatives are too few and far in between to ignite the exponential growth curve that we see in highly developed economies. The governments kill many initiatives before they stand a chance, with corruption being the other killer.

(Participant) Fred, why do those governments want to kill these initiatives? Wouldn't they ultimately benefit if the economies were more robust? What role does corruption play in holding back the growth of entrepreneurial ventures? Does it raise the cost beyond the point of being profitable? Does Islam condone corruption? Are the fundamentalist clerics engaged in those same behaviors? Are you suggesting that these countries can develop viable self-sustaining economies apart from the global economy?

(Farhad Saba) Kip, please see my comments below:
Why do those governments want to kill these initiatives?
==> There is a disconnect between the governing elite and the governed. Heads of states are not elected; they do not draw their power from the people, and see no responsibility toward them other than repressing them. People have no stake in the government either.

Wouldn't they ultimately benefit if the economies were more robust?
==> No, why would they benefit? Direct and indirect taxes are so small relative to the oil income, and subsidies that the contribution of the people does not matter. They are in the way of the governing elite in spending the oil money on multiple palaces.

What role does corruption play in holding back the growth of entrepreneurial ventures?
==> Virtually any new initiative in these countries require that you include one of the ruling elites as a "partner." The New Jersey Mafia bosses pale in comparison to the Iranian clergy. They should take lessons from the clergy in Iran.

Does it raise the cost beyond the point of being profitable?
==> Well, most of the profit goes to the "partner."

Does Islam condone corruption?
==> No. There is nothing in Islam per se that would condone corruption. Quite the contrary.

Are the fundamentalist clerics engaged in those same behaviors?
==> They are the embodiment of corruption. They are corrupt in every cell of their bodies. One example is the "temporary marriage." For a fee, any cleric can marry a man and a woman for a few hours. This process has another name in Las Vegas.

Are you suggesting that these countries can develop viable self-sustaining economies apart from the global economy?
==> No. I did not suggest that. All I was saying was that if the governments leave the people to their own devices, they will engage in local production as well as international trade. We forget that peoples of this region were international traders for many centuries before the modern global trading system was put in place.

Previous Page          Next Page

top