How ironic, if democracy increased fundamentalism
Discussion
So the West is pressurising Arab states to be more democratic. Wouldn't it be ironic if the people elected hard-line, Muslim fundamentalists - like what seems to have happened in Iran. If more Arab countries embraced democracy and the people voted in hard-liners, I wonder how the West would react if this were to happen. It would certainly be something of political conundrum! Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if that's how it pans out in The Middle East.
Indeed.
The Whitehouse must ponder the possibility that having invested so many, many billions of dollars, and lost so many young lives, that one day ( maybe soon ) a democratic Iraq may decide to elect a government who will tell them to leave and move out of their cherished air bases as well.
That will test the ideology of "spreading democracy" for sure. The acid test is when that imposed democracy rejects those who imposed it.
The Whitehouse must ponder the possibility that having invested so many, many billions of dollars, and lost so many young lives, that one day ( maybe soon ) a democratic Iraq may decide to elect a government who will tell them to leave and move out of their cherished air bases as well.
That will test the ideology of "spreading democracy" for sure. The acid test is when that imposed democracy rejects those who imposed it.
They are voting for people who they think oppose those who oppose them. Logical when you think about it.
The more the US leans on the Arab states the more the Arabs will resist, either by rejecting democracy or by electing hardliners and funamentalists.
Just why are the US bothering with Iran anyway? Iran poses no real threat to them. Even with nukes they are a long way from challenging the US. Iran is surrounded by countries that have nukes, Isreal, Turkey, Russia, India are not that far away for a missile or a plane. The answer is obvious. America is still vengefull after 9-11 and it secures the jewish vote back home.
The more the US leans on the Arab states the more the Arabs will resist, either by rejecting democracy or by electing hardliners and funamentalists.
Just why are the US bothering with Iran anyway? Iran poses no real threat to them. Even with nukes they are a long way from challenging the US. Iran is surrounded by countries that have nukes, Isreal, Turkey, Russia, India are not that far away for a missile or a plane. The answer is obvious. America is still vengefull after 9-11 and it secures the jewish vote back home.
srebbe64 said:
So the West is pressurising Arab states to be more democratic. Wouldn't it be ironic if the people elected hard-line, Muslim fundamentalists - like what seems to have happened in Iran. If more Arab countries embraced democracy and the people voted in hard-liners, I wonder how the West would react if this were to happen. It would certainly be something of political conundrum! Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if that's how it pans out in The Middle East.
Wasnt the choice in Iran though of 100 possible candidates a list that started with the "ultra ultra conservatives" going down to the plain old simple home grown "ultra conservatives"?
I thought the row in Iran a year ago was that the t*****r in charge refused to allow anyone less than a raving fundamental to stand in the elections.
tinman0 said:
So the West is pressurising Arab states to be more democratic. Wouldn't it be ironic if the people elected hard-line, Muslim fundamentalists - like what seems to have happened in Iran. If more Arab countries embraced democracy and the people voted in hard-liners, I wonder how the West would react if this were to happen. It would certainly be something of political conundrum! Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if that's how it pans out in The Middle East.
Wasnt the choice in Iran though of 100 possible candidates a list that started with the "ultra ultra conservatives" going down to the plain old simple home grown "ultra conservatives"?
I thought the row in Iran a year ago was that the t*****r in charge refused to allow anyone less than a raving fundamental to stand in the elections.
Actually that isn't true. Whilst none of the candidates are liberal in the western sense of the word, Rafsanjani was a moderate who was in favour of liberalising society and opening up cooperation with foreign countries. The problem has always been that the hardline religious clerics have been against the governments modernisations. Not all of them believe this is the way forward though, with very senior and very prominent clerics in favour of opening contacts with Europe and even America.
Very true 968. Iran is divided. On one side are those who wish to open links to Europe and the US, on the other side are those who want a hardline traditional cleric approach.
The BBC website has an article regarding Jack Straw warning Iran about it's nuclear projects. Apparently Isreal regards Iran as their top threat. Why? Iran does not have any borders with Isreal and the countries it does border with are much more hostile, it's hundreds of miles away from the Gaza Strip. The rejection of Isreal's right to exist is just retoric, all the Arabs say that. The reality is that Iran is also concerned with instability in Iraq, Southern Russia, Afghanistan and the possibility of India and Pakistan fighting a religious war, and a direct threat from the US. All these problems are much closer to home than Isreal.
The BBC website has an article regarding Jack Straw warning Iran about it's nuclear projects. Apparently Isreal regards Iran as their top threat. Why? Iran does not have any borders with Isreal and the countries it does border with are much more hostile, it's hundreds of miles away from the Gaza Strip. The rejection of Isreal's right to exist is just retoric, all the Arabs say that. The reality is that Iran is also concerned with instability in Iraq, Southern Russia, Afghanistan and the possibility of India and Pakistan fighting a religious war, and a direct threat from the US. All these problems are much closer to home than Isreal.
But if the current US administration wished to have a pop at Iran before the next Presidential election they could not have hoped for a better result.
The 'bad candidate' gets in and his suddenly 'moderate' opponent cries foul because the vote differential is so large and unexpected.
The 'bad candidate' gets in and his suddenly 'moderate' opponent cries foul because the vote differential is so large and unexpected.
LongQ said:
But if the current US administration wished to have a pop at Iran before the next Presidential election they could not have hoped for a better result.
The 'bad candidate' gets in and his suddenly 'moderate' opponent cries foul because the vote differential is so large and unexpected.
Thus,
:- Democracy appears to be increasing fundamentalismhustlebabe said:
But if the current US administration wished to have a pop at Iran before the next Presidential election they could not have hoped for a better result.
The 'bad candidate' gets in and his suddenly 'moderate' opponent cries foul because the vote differential is so large and unexpected.
Thus,
Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff