William Dalrymple's comment in the Guardian's Commentisfree blog has attracted the usual hysteria from roving bands of Islamophobes, but makes a plausible case for the view that the real impetus behind the growth of political Islam has been the search for a popular response to western policies in the Muslim world. If you take a look around the countries of west Asia, you are likely to see western support going to monarchies like Jordan, Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States, or to an electoral dictatorship called Egypt. Democratic opposition to western policies in the region takes the shape of support for Islamic parties. Dalrymple cites Hamas in Palestine and the Hizbollah as the most dramatic examples of parties that win popular support, but the basis for their support are the capacity for these parties to support social welfare programs that the state has failed to provide, and the fact that they form the focus of the resistance to Israel, the main western "representative" in the region. Dalrymple notes that Bush's desire to be a missionary bombardier for democracy has indeed worked in a destructive, perverse way: popular anti-western resistance forces have coagulated around Islamic parties not because of their Islamic teachings, but because they provided the only credible resistance to western destruction.
But do these Islamic parties really represent an alternative to western economic domination and to the injustices of global capitalism? Dalrymple writes that "the religious parties tend to be seen by the poor, rightly or wrongly, as representing justice, integrity and equitable distribution of resources." But these parties have never had to actually run a government, except, locally in Lebanon. And when they did in Afghanistan, they were a disaster, both socially and economically. So it's difficult to judge their potential as alternatives to the present order of immiserising capitalism. Judging by the record of Islamic parties like the AKP in Turkey, which has also gained in strength in the last elections mainly because the opposition lacked a credible program, it seems possible to combine successful economic management according to the Washington consensus - high growth, lower inflation, a business-friendly economic climate - with programs that address the needs of the poor, at least to a limited extent, and in the medium term.
Dalrymple's key insight is that political Islam wins by addressing secular concerns - the standard of living, stable jobs, quick compensation for war damage, active resistance to armed attacks by western forces - and not by conjuring up visions of paradise attained through violent jihad, which is the Islamophobe's standard version. This has the reassuring implication that the motivation for political Islam does not come from the desire for a theocracy, but from the desire for worldly justice and well-being.
But try telling that to the Kemalist elite in Turkey! To them modernity can never have an Islamic definition, only a western one. Therefore, AKP's successful economic management and their desire to join the EU is a facade or veil, concealing the desire to ultimately create an Islamic theocracy governed by the sharia. For the Kemalist, to be a believer in European secularism, but to be turned away at Europe's door for being a Muslim country, poses a painful dilemma, only resolvable by Turks trying to be as western as ever. But the only judges of Turkish westernness are the Europeans, with their secularism and liberalism and enlightenment and human rights and democracy and humanitarian intervention. Unfortunately for the Kemalists, most Turks want the human rights, democracy and the worldy benefits of capitalism, but still see themselves as being Muslim too. In the present context, this brings constant reminders of western double standards and hypocrisy.
This hypocrisy has been brilliantly captured in a satirical posting responding to Dalrymple's comment from one Rasher101. It's well worth quoting in full. (I now find it's been deleted by the moderator. Shame on you, CiF!)
Surely the time is right for military intervention to bring democracy and freedom to the American people?These poor people languish under a corporate dictatorship in which financial moguls decide on who they can or can't vote for, in which so-called 'elections' are morass of gerrymandering, registration irregularities and outright fraud, and in which a student can be dragged away and tasered for asking the wrong question. This is a country in which people can be locked up for years without trial, in which the government can spy on its citizens as it wishes, and in which tens of millions of people are abandoned to live wretched lives with minimal wages and no healthcare. America is also a regime reputed to possess Weapons of Mass Destruction - and it has used them in the past. It is not only a threat to the world's security but a blight on the world's conscience. The case for military intervention is overwhelming.
It is clear that, by removing the deeply unpopular American regime, by ending the threat from American WMD and by bringing free and fair elections to the American people we would be making the entire region of North America and the North Atlantic much more stable. By invading and occupying America to create a free and democratic state we would be establishing a friendly nation in the heart of North America. This would be an example that would spread, particularly to Britian and Israel, nations with their own history of violence and aggression and who also threaten global security.
The initial invasion would have to be followed by a nation-building exercise as Americans are trained in critical thinking, free speech and democracy. Americans have been subjected to a nationalistic and simple-minded press and media for decades, to the extent that many are no longer aware of even the basic geography of the world, never mind its social and cultural diversity and complexity. Many have even degenerated into religious fundamentalism. Their education and training would therefore take years, and so it is realistic to expect that we would be obliged to maintain 'enduring bases' throughout America to maintain an overwatch role and to ensure that the Americans make the right choices.
Our liberation of the American people would surely be welcomed with flowers and with cheers as our tanks and soldiers marched through the rubble of their cities. Yes, many Americans would die, but collateral damage happens in all wars, however noble (not that we would be counting American deaths!!). Americans, with their gun culture and school shootings and death penalty and mass incarcerations, are much more used to violence and death than we are. They don't feel the same pain when their children are killed and maimed - they're used to it. It really doesn't bother them as much. Sure a few thousand Americans would be shot at our checkpoints, and thousands more would die under our bombs. But that's the price of freedom. Don't worry about it.
The costs of the intervention would not be too great. I estimate $2 billion over three, four - not more than six months. After that America should be in a position to refinance its own reconstruction (overseen by us, of course). It is true it might be difficult to get UN Security Council approval for this intervention, as justified as it is, but we should go ahead anyway. After all, we know our cause is just, that WE are right, and that those predicting disaster are just communist cowards.Oh, wait! I just found out that America reached peak oil in 1969 and that its current reserves are small and dwindling rapidly. My bad! Forget the whole thing!!
Comments