Democracy in the Islamic Middle East - a scary prospect for American policy-makers

[Published in Today's Zaman, February 1, 2011]

I understand “realpolitik.” I am familiar with the driving concept of “national interest,” as espoused by Hans Morgenthau of the University of Chicago in the 1950’s that has been at the center of American foreign policy ever since. It is a policy that often leads the U.S. to make “friends” with dictators, kings, and other nefarious people to sustain a strategic partnership, regional defensive effort, or stability that supports U.S. interests abroad.

When no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, the Bush administration changed its discourse and switched to “democracy” as its justification for the invasion in 2003. After all, Saddam Hussein was a “bad guy” anyway, even if his role as a “war on terror” target made little sense. Ironically, the unfairness of the invasion led to more terror in the world and more need for the Western alliance to lend support for undemocratic and unjust regimes to protect its interests.

The Winds of Democracy

Now, in the Middle East, an area of the world with many repressive regimes and long-term leaders who have remained in power by suppressing democratic representation by means of military power, constrictive constitutions, sham parliaments, lack of free speech and individual rights, and systems that have hard-wired support for the government’s party making it impossible for an opposition to take hold, something amazing is happening: from Tunisia to Yemen, to Egypt, to Jordan people have awakened from years of subjugation by being pushed to the brink by political dysfunction and economic destitution. They have started to express themselves by means of the only option left for them, and the only venue they know: taking to the streets.

America’s response is telling, and disappointing. Not long before Ben Ali fled Tunisia, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that her government was “not taking sides” in that conflict. Last Friday, in the heat of the street demonstrations and battles all over Egypt, she pressed for non-violence and “reforms,” once again not taking sides against a close personal friend and long-time U.S. ally, President Mubarak, seen as a key to “stability” in the Middle East. The American news anchor of CNN International could not help asking, “Who is behind the demonstrations in Egypt?” a question which expresses a mindset suspicious of the genuineness of democracy and welfare demands of the masses in the streets. In a similar vein, he said that the U.S. would be very interested in knowing if the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist groups were involved in these demonstrations, which “would change things substantially.” Really? This is the same old Cold War mentality, which we can now call the War on Terror mentality, which believes that if it is organized by Islamic groups, the demands of the masses in the streets are not genuinely democratic and not on “our” side. The reports of Al Jazeera were refreshingly free of this perspective, reports that are not seen in the U.S. That network knows the difference between Islamic and Islamist, and also that the latter term can mean any type of political movement, not simply the “bad” one in the minds of the West.

Democracy at the Expense of Stability

How sad. Earth to America: the vast majority of people in the Middle East are Islamic. Their political parties and organizations come in many variations but for the most part are simply made up of people who have not had a voice in their various countries and have suffered politically, economically, and socially. Freely expressing that voice comes with democracy.

During the Cold War, for those of us old enough to remember, the world got used to America’s defense of “the free world” against the scourge of communism. Radio Free Europe and other information organizations constantly spread the word, until it seems the Soviet Union, our “evil empire,” succumbed to the words of Ronald Reagan and the Berlin Wall fell. Was the defense of democracy just rhetoric?

Democracy in the Middle East is a volatile concept. It’s unpredictable, has an unforeseen path, and hardly breeds stability and peace. At Davos, Tony Blair called for an “orderly” path of change in the Middle East, reminding us once more that the magic words “orderly” or “stable” are the only safeguards for protecting strategic, economic and political interests of the bloc he represents amid the sea change that is bound to take place in this part of the world. Blair forgets that “stability” is a precious concept only when it nourishes, protects and cherishes democracy, not dictatorships.

“Democracy We Can Believe In”?

That is not the only reason that word – democracy -- is no longer heard from American and Western policy-makers. The main reason is that the West has a very hard time grasping two concepts together: democracy and Islam. When those concepts are mixed together, eyebrows wince and lips are tightened or become silent. It might work, perhaps in Iraq, in a purely secular way, via elections, as long as Islamic-centered parties are not involved and Islamic traditions do not conflict with an American view of democracy.

But democracy is not simply an American concept. The Greeks gave birth to the concept before America existed, when London was barely farm land, before the rise of nation-states. The concept of a people deciding on how they shall govern themselves does not impose hard and fast rules on a particular form of representation or government or how religion is practiced. It simply enables people to decide for themselves, which sometimes may differ from the values and cultures of others and which sometimes produces unhappiness given that democracies have different trajectories in different conditions.

Democracy in the Middle East can be very messy and bring instability. In many ways it is a dangerous concept. This is particularly the case when political institutions in a country have not been allowed to develop, when participation has been repressed for decades, when political power originates from the end of a gun and not the support of a people. It takes some struggle, instability, uncertainty, ups and downs and time to develop civil and political institutions; rules on how polemical discourse is resolved; and how the transition of political power takes place without violence.

On the other hand, democracy is the answer to terrorism and the best solution to terrorist groups who have been rewarded with too much notoriety and press coverage by the West without due consideration given to the average person who struggles each day to find work, make a living, raise children, and hold a family together in peace. In the long run, it would be nice if America and the West could manage to place that concept within the context of countries where Islam is the main religion, allowing them to define on their own how Islam and democracy are manifested.

*Richard Peres is a writer and journalist living in Istanbul http://richperes.blogspot.com rich.peres@gmail.com

Religious Freedom, published in Today's Zaman, January 9, 2011

Religious freedom in America and its source


by RICHARD PERES*

09 January 2011, Sunday

While I was in America in December an important anniversary came and went with little notice by anyone. On Dec. 15, 1791, Virginia became the 11th state to approve the ratification of the first 10 amendments -- also called the Bill of Rights -- to the US Constitution.

There were only 14 states at the time, and Virginia’s approval met the three-fourths requirement for states to approve constitutional changes.

What the early American settlers did more than 200 years ago has direct applicability today to the WikiLeaks revelations, the so-called Ground Zero mosque controversy and the lives of millions. The First Amendment often comes up in conversations; its meaning is continually discussed and seems to sit in the forefront of American consciousness.

The First Amendment amounts to just 45 words, the first 16 providing religious freedom. It is clear, concise, amazingly to the point and without qualification:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How is it that such a religious country so clearly kept religion out of the realm of government?

The paradox of American secularism

It is well known that the founding fathers of America -- Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, etc. -- were all Christians who openly espoused their beliefs within the context of establishing government in America, as do today’s presidents who proclaim “God bless America” during official events. Hamilton’s comments after the constitutional convention in 1787 were typical: “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] as a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” Yet, notwithstanding these orations, and the fact that “In God We Trust” adorns US currency, the clear language of the first amendment is a barrier to government intrusions into the religious realm. Religious freedom was the first right of the first amendment to the US Constitution -- why was it so important?

The answer stems from the fact that America was most often settled by those who fled religious persecution. In fact, it was a group of French Protestants, called Huguenots, who founded the first European colony in America in 1564 (in what is now Florida), escaping the persecution of Catholics. Their freedom was a matter of life and death. Beginning with the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of Aug. 24, 1572, 25,000 Huguenots were slaughtered by French Catholics just in Paris alone in less than a month. Throughout the 17th century they and other Christians who were victimized for their beliefs arrived in US ports, looking for religious freedom and assimilating with the population. In fact Paul Revere, the famous first hero of the Revolutionary War, was descended from Huguenots, as well as Henry Laurens, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and Alexander Hamilton. Similarly, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was established by English Puritans (Congregationalists), Pennsylvania by British Quakers, Maryland by English Catholics and Virginia by English Anglicans. Today there are more than 200 different religious denominations in America and a growing number of non-Christian ones, including those believing in Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism.

The key point here is that there is no contradiction between the religious character of American society and the fact that American public life is organized around religious freedom. Religious freedom in America emanates from below, that is, from the interests of its people, not its government. The government, or state, has no involvement other than to stipulate and enforce the free exercise of religion.

Islam in America

Although religion is not asked by US census takers, the general estimate, based on NGO surveys, is that there are between 6 million and 10 million believers of Islam in America today. Initial settlers came from the Ottoman Empire between the 1880s and 1914. Today’s US Muslim population consists of people mostly from South Asia and Arab countries.

The Islamic population in America suffers more discrimination than other groups but knows that such discrimination is unlawful and is willing to exercise its rights. “While Muslims comprise less than 2 percent of the American population, they accounted for approximately one quarter of the religious discrimination claims filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during 2009.”

Ironically, America’s founding fathers were sympathetic to Islamic people. Among the many fascinating bits of information you will find on the Internet, through sites such as Wikipedia, regarding Islam in America:

“In 1776, John Adams published ‘Thoughts on Government,’ in which he praises the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a ‘sober inquirer after truth’ alongside Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates and other pagan and Christian thinkers.”

“In 1785, George Washington stated a willingness to hire ‘Mahometans,’ as well as people of any nation or religion, to work on his private estate at Mount Vernon if they were ‘good workmen’.”

Benjamin Franklin, in his autobiography, and Thomas Jefferson defended the religious freedom of Muslim people in America.

In summary, despite America’s religiosity, it is no wonder that America’s earliest legislators enacted the First Amendment and took a “hands-off” attitude towards religion on the part of government.

The post-9/11 world

Unquestionably, religious freedom is being tested in America in regards to Islamic people after the traumatizing events of Sept. 11. The divide is serious and comes to the surface even in my discussions with friends regardless of their religion or education. I try to combat vindictive generalizations with my own experiences in Turkey, and the people I know personally and interact with daily -- sometimes without success.

The latest attack on the political front in the US comes from one Peter King, the new Republican chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in the US House of Representatives. He is launching an investigation into the “radicalization” of American Muslims, similar to the “investigation” of the New York City mosque he touted last summer. Representative Keith Ellison, America’s first Muslim member of congress, objected and told this to Mr. King face-to-face in the halls of Congress. He said that vilifying one community was the wrong approach.

Even in this environment I remain hopeful. For one thing, religious freedom and respect for others’ beliefs enabled Mr. Ellison to get elected in the first place. The First Amendment’s protections are well-established in America.

And there are the people I met during my recent visit to the States. One is a middle school principal in Maryland who supports the right to wear any kind of religious attire in her school, including a young Sikh who wears a turban and has never had a haircut.

And finally there is a Turkish friend, an Islamic woman, living in New York City. Her 9-year-old girl wants to wear a headscarf. She tried to have her postpone that decision until she is older, but her daughter insisted. Having faced bad treatment because of her own religious beliefs and concerned about how she might be treated unfairly at school, the mother met with her daughter’s school principal. But the principal assured her that this was not a problem and that she would watch out for her daughter and intercede should she be harassed or have difficulties in school.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Richard Peres is the author of two books on discrimination law and a writer living in İstanbul. http://richperes.blogspot.com rich.peres@gmail.com