Economic inequality is, in substantial part, a political phenomenon
Quote of the day
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes:
NavigationThe World
Our writers |
 |
solutions?Posts: Joined: 2006-10-26
Seeing as alot of the most recent posts on the threads relating to the middle east and its relationship with the western world have been mainly reactionary without many constructive thoughts as to how the situation may be improved i would be interested to hear other peoples thoughts as to what kind of steps should be taken. Seeing as the palestinian territories, the war in iraq and the islam in europe (to name a few) all contribute to what is known as the "conflict between the islam and the west" i will keep the subject as broad as possible. I will keep my ideas out of this post so as to prevent the next persons opinion simply being a reaction to mine.
So if anyone has any constructive thoughts on what should happen and not simply what shouldn't happen i would be interested to read about it.
Submitted on Sun, 2006-11-19 13:17
Re: solutions?
Well perhaps allowing democracy to take root in the Middle East might be a start. Perhaps if Moslems (I direct my words to those on this site as a beginning) start to examine their own consciences this could be constructive.
The Bishop of Rochester was right when he pointed out that so many Moslems (again I use the examples on this site) have a blend of 'victim' and 'domination' mentality. It is time they grew up and realized that they have been in the Middle East the authors of their own misfortunes. Israel exists, so get over it and seek to find a way to live with Israel in peace. And to the Israelis I would say this: stop behaving like a bunch of second rate Nazis, and seek to find a solution with your Arab neighbours.
As to things here at home (in my case the UK) I think it is high time we took a far more robust attitude to Moslems and their Imams of hate. Enough is enough. We could start by restricting visas for Imams to come and work here, and we could legislate on the control of Mosques. I have come to the view that if the Moslem community wont control what goes on in their mosques, and ensure they are not spewing out hate and bile (or being used for criminal acts like Finsbury Park was) then we must take a hand in controlling them.
The blind hate which is evident in so many utterances from Moslems towards their fellow citizens has done nothing but damage to the entire Moslem community. Amongst most of the people I know - decent hardworking ordinary people - the level of contempt (and I use this word with care) for Islam and Moslems has grown in leaps and bounds. Much as some would like to lay the blame elsewhere I am afraid that blowing up tube trains and London buses did not go down very well in Middle England. The Moslem community needs to understand this and begin to repair some of the damage it has done.
Re: solutions?
I do not wish to reply to the numerous fallacies in the previous post merely the one I perceive to be not only the most obvious but also the most commonly made. This being the idea that democracy can simply 'take root'.
It is a misconception that democratic systems are a. innately superior and b. the natural form of government.
It is evident that the problems of the middle east cannot simply be solved by 'democracy'. It is not a solution in itself merely a vehicle through which people think solutions will be found. This brings me to my next point. Democracy is not a natural form of governance, indeed the entire concept of governance itself being natural requires some discussion. The notion that once any other system is removed democracy will begin to sprout and flourish is misplaced. It has taken hundreds of years in western societies to realize any form of democracy and even ours have obvious problems. Democracy must be formed on the bedrock of solid institutions and popular support and agreement. Otherwise it will create more problems than it solves.
Re: solutions?
i agree with that T.N.
Although there are many problems in the world, that what is perceived as the right form of governance in one culture does not necessarily make it the norm in the other. We may not understand this, but we still must accept it. Simply declaring western ways are the way to go is ignorant and comes across as arrogant and unsympathetic, especially with all the flaws our civilization has in its history and modern day practice (from colonial times to free market enterprise).
On the other hand i believe that free will is the one universal right that needs to be advocated in all cultures.
Re: solutions?
'It is time we rethought our policy and maybe to deny the fruits you so richly enjoy to others is not a policy you would care to defend.'
First and foremost I would never wish to defend something that I have not said. I did not speak of denying the people of the middle east the option of accountability and democracy but highlighting the difficulties involved if they desire such a system. I do not mean to imply that tyranny is the only feasible alternative, only the difficulties involved in giving people the accountability you desire.
In addition to this the idea that we simply dealt with whomever is in power is not entirely accurate. There are many instances where it has been the west who have disrupted the stability of a region. Far from sticking to the status quo the west has openly upset the balance. For example, it was the west who removed the first elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1953 and put in place the Shah. To give a further example it was the west who implemented the removal of Salvador Allende of Chile the worlds first democratically elected communist leader. To be replaced by General Pinochet
In what respect can you now state in your 'robust' manner that the west has stood for stability and the status quo?
Re: solutions?
TNT
While I am sure it will be irksome to you, perhaps you ought to consider if the NeoConservative idea of democracy in the Middle east is such a bad one.
What I find quite disgusting is the view one hears from the Left that Saddam was a wicked tyrant, but so long as he was 'contained' that was ok. I doubt even you shed many tears at his fall, yet you cannot 'will the end without also willing the means'. That is and was the reality of Iraq. And as this is the Faith & Ideas section I must question what sort of morality is it that feels it is ok to leave ones fellow man to the mercies of a tyrant like Saddam ? The Iraqi people lived in an open prison and walked upon a mass grave. So where is the morality and the humanity to leave them in that state ?
You mention the Shah and also (rather predicatably) Allende. First of all the Shah was the ligitimate sovereign of Iran. Of that there can be no question. There were legitimate and valid reason for why the 'west' acted as it did, but these reasons must be viewed within there historical settings. Like wise the rise of Nasser (in which the west played no part); the arrival of Assad in Syria or even earlier the creation of Saudi Arabia. The west has very often done nothing at all and has allowed events to take there own course. As to Allende again one must see this in its historical context and Allende intended to be the first and last 'democratically elected communist leader'. He is not quite the gilded saint so many on the Left think him to be.
One notes you have nothing to say about Mugabe for example who has ruined his country over the last 25 years, during which the west has done nothing. The list of where the west has done nothing is a long one and a very bloody one.
One wonders if a solution might be for the west to use its military power to overthrow despots like Mugabe ? Doing this a few times would probably make any a tyrant or would be tyrant sit up and take note.
|
|
|
