Open Writing

I think it was Lloyd George who was reported to have said, “If anyone finds a solution to the Irish question, the Irish will change the question.” The same sentiment could be applied to the Middle East. Many are hailing the “Arab Spring” as the beginning of a brighter, better future for the populations of the ancient lands, but I think they’re deluding themselves out of ignorance about the past.

The British were roundly criticized for their imperialism, and certainly they ruled their colonies with a heavy, hand. In the case of the Mediterranean and North African countries, they treated the people with haughty condescension.

However, after the Greeks and the Romans, it was the British who really understood the challenge of governing, and bringing any sense of order to the region. The British were accused of tinkering when they supported and promoted the Saudis, but that manufactured kingdom has emerged as one of the more stable and relatively benevolent nations.

Only the British fully understood the deadly mix of tribalism, religion, multiple ethnicity and inadequate education and employment. They also attracted some vilification over their opposition to a Zionist state, but now it is clear that British concerns about how such a settlement would dovetail into the Eastern Mediterranean were not farfetched.

In a past article, I posited a simplistic theory, only half seriously, as to why the citizens of Middle Eastern countries are so rooted in Biblical times, and so vehemently opposed to change. Could it be, I wondered, that those people are the genetic remnants of those who chose to stay when the more adventurous began their slow spread to other continents in pre-historic times?

It’s unfortunate that the current influence for change in the region is the USA. I say unfortunate, because, as a nation, we are ill equipped to understand other cultures. Even some of the best educated citizens refer to Eyerack, and Eytaly, which is symptomatic of their lack of empathy. The unstated belief here is that if you are not American you are unfortunate, and need to be converted.

The proselytizers wave the flag of democracy and are dismayed and offended when their advances are rebuffed. Painting over the cracks with democracy will never effectively bond the disparate factions. Probably a better answer for short term change would be socialism, or even communism, a proposal that would likely send the US reformers into paroxysms.
The latest despot to fall in the Arab Spring is Muammar Gaddafi. If there ever was a prime example of a genetic failure to accept change it was he. The Libyan rebels have been praised as brave and idealistic fighters, and perhaps they deserve that accolade.

I’m sure that among them are intending reformers, but I suspect that, even as the fighting was still going on, there were, as yet, faceless plotters with very different agendas on how the country will be run once the dust has settled. Oil rich Libya will now be a magnet for all the influential Libyans who have found greener pastures since the “Brother Leader” came to power. Now I hear mutterings about Libya becoming the next Somalia.

Syria’s Bashar al-Assad is yet another leader with genetic blindness to the need for change. How else can his intransigence in the face of what has happened to his neighboring countries be explained? He is apparently an intelligent man, with the benefit of a modern education in the US, and without the disadvantage of having come to power through the military. Is his decision to tough it out with the rebels rooted in the belief that things could be even worse without him?

Certainly there is already evidence that the euphoria of Egypt’s revolution is giving way to “business as usual.” The Egyptian military, Mubarak’s alma mater, is still the most powerful influence in the country, and the religious fundamentalists now are beginning to get their second wind.

There is perhaps a lesson in the history of what once was Yugoslavia. Under the communist leadership of Marshal Tito, it was a stable, united and largely successful state. The ethnic and religious factions were quieted, and, to the best of my knowledge, having spent time there in the 50’s, were not coiled springs waiting to be unleashed.

Came Tito’s death, self-interested individuals saw an opportunity to prosper from strife. Neighbors of different religions or ethnic origins, who had lived peacefully side by side for generations, suddenly were pitched against each other in bloody turmoil, evidence that a strong, but not despotic leader can hold together a disparate populace.

Democracy is a fine ideal, but it’s not a one size fits all way to govern. It may never be the right solution for some cultures, and the sooner the US government realizes this, the better for the world.

# # #

For more of John's challenging columns please click on
http://www.openwriting.com/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=john+merchant

John's Web site
http://home.comcast.net/~jwmerchant/site/