The Weak Foundations of Arab Democracy

[MH]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

Also not entirely true
You make it sound as if the whole ME consists of tribes. You're generalizing an entire region.
Especially in the case of Egypt this is definitely not true. They very much see themselves as one people. Not much tribes there I can assure you.

That's why i addressed Egypt separately.

Originally Posted by Bakkels

Well that's what both he and Khadaffi do: they play the scare card. They threaten that if they are overthrown, radical Islam will take over.
Well I'd like to see that before I believe it. Seems very convenient, and whenever the words 'radical Islam' are uttered, you know the western world will be scared sh*tless.

True about the radical Islam scare but Libya is in sort of tribal war.
Syria is not much different.

Egypt's future is unknown really.
No reform can fix its problem quickly enough or rise standard of living to stop Egypt from drifting toward radicalism or instability.
Islamists had perfected taking advantage of such situations by charity foundations to bring people to their ideology.
Ideology which gives nothing in long run but puts some minimal food on the table.
That is as long as the struggle for power lasts.
Works perfectly in places with relatively low education and economical problems- proven all over ME.
That's why Obama is pouring billions of $.
He is the charity man as contra wight to radicals.
Maybe Egypt can be seen as sort of France of ME but cultural roots in the country are different.
For Arabs moving toward democracy is the same as embracing western values and culture.
Not very welcomed thing in many cases even in Egypt.

Originally Posted by Bakkels

Most people that got arrested under Mubarak were arrested for no reason other than being a political threat; political opponents or journalists.

True but Egyptians had lot of freedoms by ME standards.
You could not criticize Mubarak-sort of like no personal attacks on this forum...

Originally Posted by Bakkels

Another thing; on the one hand western governments openly disapprove of dictatorship, yet they never turned from Khadafii or Mubarak. They only did so (rather late and reluctantly I might add) when they realized opposition to both of them had grown so large it couldn't be stopped. Because dictators as they might be; they have been there for decades, and a lot of big western companies (Shell among others) had made huge deals with them.

Yeah you want to be on a winning side and you have to think of alternative scenario as well.
Besides its about interests VS idealism.
ME natural starting point is not pro west.
When someone in Syria or Egypt shouts "freedom" he might mean it very differently to how you precept it.

Originally Posted by Bakkels

Oh and about the dictatorship-stage being necessary; you might have a point there, but both countries have seen decades of dictatorship now. One might argue they are ready for a next phase by now...

One may argue....

[Castout]

Those very people who took to the streets now must lead them by running for office. There's no other way to do it. Expecting the existing elite to lead which do not share ideology and which are still holding on to backwardness is not going to help democratization.

It's the same problem or situation faced by my own country who have had political change from Soeharto's regime in 1998. The Arab is much more united and they knew the cost of failure hence the job of guarding the process if necessary by even more protests until the idiots at the top realize the game is not theirs but the people's and for the people and by the people.

[Gerald]

All this is very much about time, and that it can develop at a pace that the people and the current government can cope with.