Here's more smart conversation, following up o­n a previous post which we might call, “Jake Levich takes o­n Milton Viorst,” in Conversation about “IRAQ: WHY THEY DON'T WANT DEMOCRACY”

From: LGenutis@aol.com [LGenutis@aol.com]

Wow! Great responses o­n this article — thanks for sending them — great read!

From: Wade Frazier  [public.email2@verizon.net]

I think Jake has the goods o­n Viorst's work. Anybody who writes for The New Yorker has to be a little suspect. : – )

Viorst writes from many lib left presumptions which are not very helpful to the folks living in the Islamic world o­n that Renaissance issue — the classic Greek works appeared in Western Europe because Islamic scholars preserved and studied them, and their translations, which deeply influenced Thomas Aquinas, among others, began coming to Europe during the 13th century. Aquinas has often been called Catholicism's greatest thinker, and he tried reconciling Aristotle's works with Christian theory. In Western Europe, the Catholic Church had long since eradicated all the classic Greek writings it could because they were “pagan.” Western Europe owed a great debt to Islamic culture when it began pursuing humanism and science.

Jake hits it o­n the head when observing the underlying arrogance of our position, as if we can bring those folks “freedom.” We are losing our own more quickly than ever. As Palden observed, the West has been o­ne of the greatest influences in undermining freedom in that part of the world for the past two centuries. Thinking that we can bring them freedom through the barrel of a gun is about as ludicrous as it gets, which is no news to you, I am sure. : – )

From: Walter Starck  [ggoldend@bigpond.net.au]

Both Viorst and Levich raise points worth considering, but matters of such complexity can always be reasonably presented from any number of different perspectives and in the final analysis even the most learned and reasonable are still o­nly guessing. Perhaps the most useful lesson from history is that most of us most of the time are wrong, and even the best are o­nly right sometimes. It behooves us not to be too adamant and give consideration to all possibilities.

Levich espouses an ideological position, but that does not mean he is wrong. He attacks Viorst most strongly for not having what he considers proper credentials, though this has nothing to do with the validity of Viorst's ideas. Truth has no particular regard for authority. The key point of Viorst's, that Iraq is not ready for democracy, is o­ne that should not be dismissed. It is naive to assume that all the world is just waiting for o­ne-man o­ne-vote liberal secular democracy. This o­nly barely works in societies tolerant of diverse opinion, with an educated electorate informed by a diversity of independent media. Trying to implement it in an uneducated, ill-informed society riven by religious and tribal divisions is highly problematic.

Across the entire Muslim world, from West Africa to Indonesia, there is not o­ne example of a liberal democracy. o­nly o­ne country, Malaysia, has achieved a successful modern economy, and even there most of the economy is dominated by a non-Muslim minority. Trying to attribute this situation to coincidence, colonialism, or U.S. imperialism is irrational and unhelpful. The causes are surely rooted in the nature of the societies themselves. The success of various non-Muslim East Asian nations is in distinct contrast. Despite being subject to similar or even worse colonialism and imperialism, they have rapidly developed modern economies and are making good progress toward increasing degrees of democracy. Also, they have done so without having undergone a renaissance.

The idea of science as having originated in the Islamic world and been imported to the West is also simplistic. Science has drawn upon a multitude of cultural threads. The Islamic contributions, chiefly in algebra and chemistry, are o­nly two of many. Whatever weight o­ne wishes to place o­n the Islamic contribution, the fact remains that despite such a head start they have made little progress in the past 500 years. Their problems are their own and in the end o­nly they can solve them. Trying to blame them o­n others at best o­nly helps perpetuate them. At worst, it encourages more terrorism and ever more devastating retaliation.

Suzanne to Walter:

Thanks for broadening this exchange to add nuances that take it beyond where it has had black an white aspects of right and wrong to it. You have such a wonderful capacity to see the big picture. That's a gift of yours. You would have been an inspired judge. I am so grateful to be hooked up with you, and know that you will bring invaluable smarts to whatever else we do, beyond the interchange we are having that provides the Featured Conversation o­n my website.

From: Madeleine Schwab [madeleineschwab@yahoo.com]

So good…. That this broad and thoughtful conversation is even taking place is truly heartwarming. Walter comes across really well in his writing. Allen Branson's quote of Chomsky was just what Chomsky said o­n KPFK this morning. Wow…impressive…mind-bending.

From: Allen Branson [allen@theconversation.org]

Walter said pretty much what I would have said. I'll say, “Ditto.”

My o­nly addition would be to respond to Jake's statement, “Of course they want democracy.” Jake says he is “not aware of anyone, anywhere, who wants to be dominated and tyrannized by dictators or unrepresentative ruling elites.” This both presupposes that any form of government other than democracy is necessarily tyrannical and that democracies are necessarily not tyrannical (and are representative). Those who might not consider democracy the best form of government are those who feel attacked or oppressed from the outside. During war people feel the need for a strong leader, not for consensus building. I'd offer as evidence how even here in the U.S. we willingly toss aside our liberties when we feel danger from the outside — there are those who felt, after 9/11, that they wished they could give both George Bush and Rudy Giuliani lifetime appointments to office. I think the point Viorst was trying to make in terms of the Enlightenment is that democracy is not (or has not been) a natural form of government for human beings to tend toward. We are a species that finds hierarchical social groupings more natural. We tend to play follow the leader. The Enlightenment was so named for the new thought it produced, including new thought (for Europeans, anyway) o­n the place of people in the world and so the rights of people within culture. This is why legends, such as King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, carry so much psychic weight. They speak of an egalitarian social/political order that is beyond “human nature.”

From: Jacob Levich [jlevich@earthlink.net]

At 12:26 PM 5/29/2003 -0700, you wrote: [Anybody know the rules of formal logic? Jake — this has a name. Because Italy didn't do democracy, despite having a renaissance, doesn't prove that a renaissance isn't a necessary precondition of democracy….Suzanne]

It's called the conditional fallacy in informal (not formal) logic, and you're quite right — the way I hastily phrased it, it reads that way. What I should have said was something like this:

Viorst implies that the readiness of a culture or nation to embrace democracy is linked to its experience of “a renaissance.” It's not clear whether he means that a renaissance is a necessary, or a sufficient, condition for democracy. Either way, he's wrong. It can't be a sufficient condition, since there are numerous instances of nations embracing fascism or other forms of dictatorship despite having had a renaissance — including Italy, the historical center of the European Renaissance. But it can't be a necessary condition because there are numerous instances of nations embracing forms of democracy without having had a renaissance: e.g., India or South Africa.

I stand by my words: “Of course they want democracy.” Democracy, strictly defined, is government by the people. I'm not aware of anyone, anywhere, who wants to be dominated and tyrannized by dictators or unrepresentative ruling elites. o­n the contrary, people universally want to determine their own future, although they disagree o­n how that is best to be accomplished.

If you and Viorst mean to say that the people of the Middle East don't want “democracy” as experienced by Third World nations under imperial or neo-colonialist domination, then of course they don't. Why would they? That sort of “democracy” is just a front for US-backed ruling elites looting national wealth, gangsters of the kind who are currently destroying Kosovo, Peru, Lebanon, the FSU, Afghanistan, etc. — and now, of course, Iraq.

Thanks for the praise, by the way — and you're to be congratulated for opening up your list to dissenting views. In the same week I requested retraction of a shameful error in another newsletter — o­ne whose editors call themselves “sentries of truth” — and discovered that the sentries were not exactly o­n duty!

Follow

I got several appreciative emails after the last post I sent, of Milton Viorst's work, for such things as it being “thoughtful and smart,” and that it “helped put some historical perspective o­n why Iraqi Shiites have no interested in democracy.” Just what I was thinking — until Jake Levich kicked in. Jake's o­ne of those people I love to read — and to post (he had o­ne of the first pieces  to sweep the Net after 9/11: Bush's Orwellian Address – Happy New Year: It's 1984, and there's more from him in a post I made in February of this year: Jacob Levich paints the picture of American Empire. Jake knows more than I do about the scene in Iraq, so listen up to what he has to say — and be sure to read the new piece of his, Democracy Comes to Iraq: Kick Their Ass and Take Their Gas, that I talk about in our email here. In fact, so's you can appreciate how much I appreciate Jake, first I'll give you some cut-to-the-chase quotes from this scathing article about current Iraq activities:

“And while the White House issues platitudes about democracy, anti-US street demonstrations, which arguably represent democracy in its purest form, are being put down by lethal force. o­n April 15, soldiers opened fire o­n a crowd hostile to the US-imposed governor in Mosul, killing at least 10 people and injuring as many as 100. o­n April 29 and again o­n April 30, US troops machine-gunned protestors in the town of Fallujah, killing at least 15 Iraqis and wounding more than 75.”

“…the US will then pull Iraq out of OPEC. The defection from OPEC of the nation with the world's second-largest oil reserves could effectively destroy the organization, eliminating o­nce for all the threat that oil-producing states may set the agenda for their own future.”

“…the US is quietly foisting upon the people of Iraq a regimen of economic 'shock therapy' reminiscent of the neo-liberal reforms that devastated Central European economies during the 1990s. Acting o­n the advice of the US Treasury Department, CENTCOM has replaced the Iraqi dinar with the US dollar — wiping out the savings and pensions of the Iraqi people at o­ne blow.”

“By the time Iraqis are granted some semblance of self-government, their country will already have been reduced to the status of a Third World debtor nation — incapacitated, brutalized, beggared, and therefore pliable enough to accommodate both international corporate interests and a massive, permanent US military presence.”

“Yet if history is any guide, the people of Iraq will not submit meekly to this latest form of tyranny. Resistance will escalate, and so will repression.”

So, here's our correspondence about Milton Viorst.

From: Jake Levich [jlevitch@earthlink.net]

I'm saddened to see this kind of shabby essentialist thinking getting your endorsement. As we would be suspicious of a seemingly qualified historian or sociologist who retails glib pronouncements about “Islam” or “The West,” as though either were monolithic, we should be doubly suspicious about Viorst, who is by no stretch of the imagination qualified. In another context, Edward Said summed up Viorst very nicely:

Milton Viorst {is} a free-lance journalist who has made the Middle East his specialty over the past 10 years or so. It is clear from what he writes that he is attracted to the Arab and Muslim world (without knowing their languages, by now a common qualification for “experts” o­n the Middle East!) mainly because he is fascinated as to why Arabs and Muslims are in a state of prolonged decline and degeneration. In his article for The Nation he described Hussein [of Jordan] as a good and unusual leader in that, unlike most Arab leaders in history, he tried to get close to his people. The vast generalisation is astonishing. What does Viorst know about “Arab history?” Where is his research and writing o­n the subject? Second, according to the sage Viorst, Hussein single-handedly tried to pull Jordan out of the “second-rateness” of the Arab world, its fate for many centuries. I doubt first of all whether any liberal and respectable journal would allow so enormous and hateful a descriptive phrase for any other culture, but it's considered appropriate for the Arabs. The point, though, is that, given the context provided for Hussein by CNN, this vision of him as something outside the ordinary framework of the other Arabs is now the acceptable o­ne. Interestingly, Viorst further compliments the late king o­n his achievement in providing his people with “clean water,” no doubt forgetting the recent water scandal that plagued Jordan just a few months ago. Never mind: facts are less important than the new context adopted unreflectingly by Viorst, whose lack of knowledge, originality, and insight are irrelevant to the “spin” he has taken over from television and the State Department. [Note — We've posted Edward Said, too, who's a professor at Colombia University and a world renowned Palestinian scholar: What Price Oslo?, about Sharon's use of excessive force against Palestine.

Of course the peoples of the Middle East want democracy, but first they want freedom from imperialism — since it's quite clear from the experience of Third World nations everywhere that Western-style democracy is meaningless under neo-colonialist foreign domination. Viorst's half-baked nonsense is really no different from the rhetoric of segregationists who argued that American blacks weren't “ready” for the vote — it's a transparent excuse for denying it.

From Suzanne to Jake:

Great to hear from you. Your email sent me to the Net, where I discovered your terrific piece, Democracy Comes to Iraq…Kick Their Ass and Take Their Gas.

I also found “Leftist Fur Fight,” in the Middle East Quarterly, where Viorst rebuts what you've quoted of Said's. Between Viorst and Said, Viorst speaks with a voice that I recognize as conscious and reasonable, and he was convincing to me re his qualification about the subject.

On to your opinion: “Of course the peoples of the Middle East want democracy.” What makes you think that they would want democracy, and that, in fact, that desire is a forgone conclusion for conscious and reasonable people (“of course”)? Perhaps if people's understandings in Muslim countries were developed, so that they had a good take o­n where they've been and where they are going, democracy always would win. But that Iraqi's “want” it now doesn't seems accurate. And dunno about your American blacks analogy. Seems a stretch in relation to how different a situation it is to fit a new group into an existing regimen, where America was out to lunch in trying to prohibit blacks from having rights, than to impose a system of governance o­n people who have not a clue about governing themselves that way.

But, any disagreement aside, many thanks for your piece, which gives great insight into what our side has been doing, whatever the Iraqis' reaction or position might be.

From Jake to Suzanne:

To my mind Said gave Viorst the pasting he deserved, and I'm surprised that anyone could see it otherwise. But rehashing that particular exchange is really beside the point.

I don't have time to pick apart Viorst's argument — every sentence contains a distortion, half-truth, or outright falsehood — so I'll pull out o­ne bit for closer examination: Viorst says that the people of Islamic countries don't want democracy because, among other things, Islam had no Renaissance. This is absurd o­n its face. For o­ne thing, Italy willingly embraced fascism despite having been the center of the European Renaissance. [Anybody know the rules of formal logic? Jake — this has a name. Because Italy didn't do democracy, despite having a renaissance, doesn't prove that a renaissance isn't a necessary precondition of democracy….Suzanne]

More important, Islamic thinkers CREATED the Renaissance. I'm sure you know about this, but it's well summed up in this extract from Robert Briffault's popular history, The Making of Humanity:

“It was under the influence of the Arabs and Moorish revival of culture and not in the 15th century, that a real renaissance took place. Spain, not Italy, was the cradle of the rebirth of Europe. After steadily sinking lower and lower into barbarism, it had reached the darkest depths of ignorance and degradation when cities of the Saracenic world, Baghdad, Cairo, Cordova, and Toledo, were growing centers of civilization and intellectual activity. It was there that the new life arose which was to grow into new phase of human evolution. From the time when the influence of their culture made itself felt, began the stirring of new life.

“It was under their successors at Oxford School (that is, successors to the Muslims of Spain) that Roger Bacon learned Arabic and Arabic Sciences. Neither Roger Bacon nor later namesake has any title to be credited with having introduced the experimental method. Roger Bacon was no more than o­ne of the apostles of Muslim Science and Method to Christian Europe; and he never wearied of declaring that knowledge of Arabic and Arabic Sciences was for his contemporaries the o­nly way to true knowledge. Discussion as to who was the originator of the experimental method….are part of the colossal misinterpretation of the origins of European civilization. The experimental method of Arabs was by Bacon's time widespread and eagerly cultivated throughout Europe.

“Science is the most momentous contribution of Arab civilization to the modern world; but its fruits were slow in ripening. Not until long after Moorish culture had sunk back into darkness did the giant, which it had given birth to, rise in his might. It was not science o­nly which brought Europe back to life. Other and manifold influence from the civilization of Islam communicated its first glow to European Life.

“For Although there is not a single aspect of European growth in which the decisive influence of Islamic Culture is not traceable, nowhere is it so clear and momentous as in the genesis of that power which constitutes the permanent distinctive force of the modern world, and the supreme source of its victory, natural science and the scientific spirit.

“The debt of our science to that of the Arabs does not consist in startling discoveries or revolutionary theories, science owes a great deal more to Arab culture, it owes its existence. The Astronomy and Mathematics of the Greeks were a foreign importation never thoroughly acclimatized in Greek culture. The Greeks systematized, generalized and theorized, but the patient ways of investigation, the accumulation of positive knowledge, the minute method of science, detailed and prolonged observation and experimental inquiry were altogether alien to the Greek temperament. o­nly in Hellenistic Alexandria was any approach to scientific work conducted in the ancient classical world. What we call science arose in Europe as a result of new spirit of enquiry, of new methods of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics, in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs.

“It is highly probable that but for the Arabs, modern European civilization would never have arisen at all; it is absolutely certain that but for them, it would not have assumed that character which has enabled it to transcend all previous phases of evolution.”

Viorst knows this — he's not THAT ignorant — so he uses weasel-words, the passive tense, and other rhetorical tricks to skate around the issue. He doesn't even have the balls to say it himself, so he invents an “elderly philosopher in Damascus” to say it for him.

What's important is to recognize Viorst's argument for what it is: an apology for colonialism. It is startling in its resemblance, not just to Bernard Lewis's rather better informed brand of Islamophobia, but also to 19th-century rationalizations of British imperialism, 20th-century arguments against decolonization in Africa and Latin America, and segregationists' arguments against what was then called Negro Suffrage. In all cases, the argument is in bad faith — it is an ex post facto justification for a decision to deny self-determination to a people. It is also racist, because — there's no getting around this — it is built o­n the notion that an entire people is somehow not qualified to determine its own future. Since it is presumed that Westerners ARE qualified to determine their futures, the inescapable implication is that Westerners are superior.

It's always been important to detect the agendas behind think-pieces; these days it's critical. (By the way, Viorst is not a leftist — neither, really, is Said — so, speaking of agendas, I was tickled to see the whole thing characterized as a “Leftist Fur Fight” o­n the ultra-reactionary Middle East Forum website.)

I wrote in the first place because I've often enjoyed your selections, which show evidence of true critical intelligence at work, and am convinced that this was a case of Homer nodding.

Islam is not monolithic; it consists of many strands and tendencies. Islamic fundamentalism is a very new phenomenon — it is best seen as a reaction to postwar US imperialism — and any writer who uses it to characterize all of Islamic thought is automatically suspect. For a well-written popular summary of the issues, I urge you to read Tariq Ali's Clash of Barbarisms. It's an eye-opener. Said's The Question of Palestine also is essential. [With all deference to what Jake knows and I don't, that “of course” still doesn't seem right to me….Suzanne]

Palden Jenkins, an excellent writer from England, who is a fellow crop circle aficionado, also had a say in response to the same post — I found his observation about democracy being dependent o­n slavery interesting food for thought.

From: Palden Jenkins [palden.jenkins@btopenworld.com]

For your interest, I o­nly half-agree with the article you sent out. I think what's happening is that Iraq will germinate a new form of 'democracy' and an Islamic reformation in due course, but it might take up to a decade, or more – and it might require the democratic West to hit more problems first, so that the West gets out of the way. The Islamic reformation was actually blocked by Western (British, then American) interests, since modernisation got identified with crass materialistic imperialism late in the 19th Century, giving Muslim conservatives the power to block change, and the Arab world cleaved into secular socialists and nationalists and Muslim traditionalists. Recent oil/power-seeking Western strategies have reinforced that in recent decades, by opposing Arab nationalism and keeping the Middle Eastern states divided. Now they want to divide Israel and Palestine – more of the same. The whole Middle East needs reuniting, if you ask me. And: dig this about Arab nationalism – it's the o­nly form of nationalism that wants to merge countries rather than split them up.

I think the issue is that Iraq needs 'holding' for some years, so that the Iraqis, who were caught by surprise in the fall of Saddam and the Western incursion, have the time and opportunity to develop an utterly new formula. To some extent this requires the fall of oil as an economic factor, since oil concentrates wealth in too few hands, and does not encourage wholesome, widespread economic/social development – Saudi Arabia being the prime example. I think this development in Iraq will be important for the whole of the Middle East. After all, Iraq is the 'cradle of civilisation' – a place where things start. I believe the best formula is for the 'Coalition' (haha) to 'hold' the energies for a while in Iraq while not being too prescriptive and democratically fundamentalist, to allow Iraqis space to heal themselves and find their own formulae. There are (kinda) democratic, or consultative, traditions within Islam, which need reappraisal and revival – these traditions were killed particularly by the Ottomans, then the West.

The key issue with any system of any kind is not the constitutional or formal arrangements by which it runs, but the good-heartedness, wisdom, integrity and commonsense with which those in power exercise the duties of their position. This applies to democracies as well. We're heading for an enormous crisis in democracy in coming years. Strangely, democracy is dependent o­n slavery – this was the case in ancient Greece, and it is the case today too (now it is an 'external proletariat' – using Arnold Toynbee's notion – and the slaves are in China, and amongst the economic and political refugees in our own countries, who do the shit jobs we're too snooty and sophisticated to do ourselves). The democracy-and-affluence formula depends o­n slavery, exploitation and cheap labour.

My book, Healing the Hurts of Nations, is at last finished and in the typesetters. Ah, the joys of the print world – where you can put a piece of work to bed and have done with it – in contrast to Internet, where the work never ends! I suspect the book will either be a roaring success or criticised to hell – o­ne of the two, or perhaps both! It presses a few buttons – but I have engaged my best stylistic abilities to provoke thoughtfulness rather than opposition. You ought to see my prognoses for the rest of the 21st Century – they won't please the 'business as usual' brigade! I'm trying to encourage people and policy-makers to think not three years, but a century ahead – though half a century will do!

From Suzanne to Palden:

Nice to have your smarts kicking in. So what part don't you agree with? What you're saying seems to add to what Voirst wrote, not take issue with it.

However you slice it, it's a horrible mess. We've got to do something about consciousness o­n a wholesale level if we ever are to find ourselves in a better place. The crop circles offer such a new arena that it's horrible not be be able to get them in play.

Anyway, here's a new musing o­n the consciousness front — evoked by my enthusiasm for Dennis Kucinich, who has been pushing for a Department of Peace and is the o­nly person running for the presidency here who talks of human-beingness:

How Can We Be So Stupid? — or, Can't We Get Smart?

What's going o­n now in the world is a dynamic that's been playing out in humanity. We are a learning species, in a progression where there always have been really bad people — conquerors of nations, and rapists and serial killers, too. Wars come out of a strain of extreme hostility that has existed through all of recorded history — first is to see that.

If you step back to look at the warring that has gone o­n, what you see is that aggressors get resisted. This is the way we've been doing it, o­ne style of fighting or another, from world wars, to regional skirmishes, to engagement with a network of little pods. What we have to do now is go beyond the traditional response to aggression. It's gotten potentially deadly to keep going the way we have been. What could be done that's different? Instead of a knee jerk, what is the thought-out alternative?

This is where we should be focusing. The Department of Peace could be founded with the understanding that we must find other ways. Not that we hope to, but that we must. That could be its commitment. That commitment, in fact, can be the vision of the Democratic Party. Without vision, you know what.

This is the stand Dennis Kucinich can make in the media. No Mr. Moonbeam here, but someone terribly strong and hugely attractive. It could melt all good hearts — all those who o­nly would go to war if attacked. That is a huge number.

This is a working body of thought. The Internet provides a way to work o­n it. Can an arena evolve to develop this line of thinking?

Allen Branson, who's been partnering with me o­n crop circle projects and helping me out as webmaster, had this comment about what Palden said:

Palden addresses the salient question, “What kind of democracy?,” by suggesting Iraq needs “holding” while an utterly new democratic formula is developed. Yet, he goes o­n to sidestep the answer when he states that the “key issue with any system of any kind is not the constitutional or formal arrangements by which it runs, but the good-heartedness, wisdom, integrity and commonsense with which those in power exercise the duties of their position.” This would change the situation from o­ne of “holding” Iraq until a workable form of democracy can be formulated to o­ne of “holding” them until someone good-hearted, wise, etc., rises to the call of leadership. Given the lack of success at finding such a leader, o­ne can't hold out much hope for Iraq at this point. o­ne also has to wonder what the value of democracy is if it is all for naught if not executed by good-hearted, wise leaders with integrity and common sense. If we had those leaders we might be happy to live under them in a monarchy, without a Parliament to muddy their good judgment.

One other caveat — slavery isn't required in a democracy but in a capitalistic growth market. It's an economic issue. Democracy does get intertwined in our minds with free market capitalism, but, not o­nly are they not the same thing, but, according to Noam Chomsky, they are not even compatible. Chomsky says:

“Now, under capitalism, we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level — there's little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism. I think that until the major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy.”

Follow

Continue reading →

Follow