Watching the news we have observed the progression of the Arab Spring with its protests blending into revolutions which signaled the coming Arab Winter, especially in Libya, Syria, Yemen and wherever the existing governmental powers refused to simply release their grip on power. Much has been said about those spots where the struggles to hold to power in the face of massive change sweeping the region. That is not what I wish to discuss. Let us instead look at those places where change has taken root and now elections are being held to produce new governments initiated by the people themselves. Much has been predicted and much has been full of optimism and promise. But are these expectations realistic or even based upon truthful premises?
Probably one of the most repeated lines I have heard in reference to giving a positive slant to the changes in the Muslim World has been that since they are making transitions towards democratic governance, they will no longer pose a threat of war to their neighbors or the greater world as democratic governments do not make war on each other, they instead hold negotiations and talk out their differences. Watching the Egyptian elections in particular, I have had good reason to doubt this proposition as it appears one of the first objectives of the coming elected Egyptian government will be to put the Camp David Peace Accords to a referendum either before the parliament or the population in general with the intent of cancelling their peace with Israel. Such a move does not fit with the mantra that the democratic government equates with peaceful intentions. We have heard similar threats from the newly formed coalition currently holding power in Lebanon which acts much like an extension of Hezballah. Similar violence against Israel has come from the Palestinian government regardless of which group you believe holds the rightful power, Hamas or Fatah. What would explain this seeming incompatibility between the intentions to cancel peace and return to openly hostile relations by the newly elected leadership in Egypt? Does it signify that Egypt is not truly a democracy or that the premise that democracy produces restraint from violence and warfare as a solution to differences?
One thing that might throw some additional light would be to look at some of the earliest democratically elected governments and their relations. When we look at ancient Greece and their city states which were the birthplace of democracy we find that warfare was more often than not the usual method of settling differences. Both Rome and Carthage had democratic governance resembling a modern republic yet these two empires had a series of wars known as the Punic Wars which resulted in the eventual destruction of Carthage. So, maybe the reason for the seeming preference to find peaceful resolutions to conflicts by modern democracies in the West is due to something completely independent from the means of choosing our governments. Perhaps the difference between what we have experienced in modern history of Western democracies and the emerging Middle Eastern democracies is due to some other social source. Perhaps the propensity for debate over violence is due to something other than how we choose our governments.
We have had one glaring exception where a great conflagration began when diplomacy and treaties failed to satisfy the desire for conquest of a democratically chosen leader who then brought wars against all who opposed his aims. That resulting conflict was World War II and the leader of an elected government was, of course, Adolph Hitler. The immediate knee jerk response is that Hitler was a dictator. Well, yes and no. He was initially chosen by parliament after duly held elections to be Chancellor. He subsequently cancelled elections and took total control, but was technically democratically placed in office. The one subject that almost always escapes scrutiny when discussing Hitler is that he was not a believer of any of the Judeo-Christian religions, but instead, he sought to make Nazism both a political entity and the national religion of the Reich. This fact leads to my premise about the true root of Western preference to eschew warfare and prefer entreatment in order to solve differences and conflicting claims or issues.
The true root of the Western preference for amiable discourse over open warfare cones from two sources, in my opinion. The first is the Judeo-Christian ethos and the second was the enlightenment and the acceptance of science, the scientific method, and logic as the basis for thought. The combination of a religious teaching for love thy neighbor, though not practice well when religion alone held sway, was reinforced by the enlightened ethos which prized logic and reasoned thought over pure emotionalism. It was this combination that wove the cloth that held our societies together more strongly than any differences which attempted to tear them apart. Western society had a very tumultuous period as religion and suspicions fought with great effort to keep scientific methods, logic, and what the religious saw as heresy and disbelief in G-d from making itself part of our society. Eventually, science offered much including greater and more powerful ways of accumulating wealth, something that caught the attention of the ruling hierarchies of the day. This brought forth a period of great scientific discoveries and enabled the spread of European control over much of the World. In time the two adversaries found an initially restless peace which has grown. The mixture of science and logic blended and tempered by the Judeo-Christian ethos produced a society that was more inclined to debate and discuss rather than for warfare and the accompanying destruction and tumult in the lives of the people. This may be born true as democracies are attempted in the Middle East, especially if the results are as I fear, just as if not more violent than the dictatorships these theocratic democracies will birth. We are assuredly heading into a deep and cold Arab winter.
Beyond the Cusp
