Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Washington policy-makers have at last arrived at the conclusion that peace in the Middle East ultimately depends on the democratization of Arab-Islamic tyrannies. Moreover, they now recognize that these tyrannies are hotbeds of Islamic terrorism, so that America’s success in the war against terrorism also depends on spreading democracy throughout the Islamic world. But this entails nothing less than a complete revolution of Islamic civilization.
Involved here is a 1,300-year old civilization diametrically opposed to virtually every aspect of Western democracy. Consider the following contradictions:
(1) Whereas, freedom, including freedom of speech, is one of the two cardinal principles of democracy, Arab-Islamic culture is strictly authoritarian, which is why its media are state-controlled.
(2) Unlike democracy, whose other cardinal principle is equality, Arab-Islamic culture is strictly hierarchical. Top-down leadership is a fundamental principle of Islamic theology. Authority runs down from Allah to Muhammad and from Muhammad to the imam, the ruler of the regime.
(3) Democracy is based on the primacy of consent or persuasion. This adorns democratic societies with a certain easy-goingness and civility. Not only are past grievances readily swept aside, but political opponents can be friends despite their differences. Differences are resolved by mutual concessions, and agreements are usually lasting. In contrast, Arab-Islamic culture is based on the primacy of coercion. Agreements between rival factions do not really terminate animosities, which is why such agreements are so short-lived.
(4) Because democracy is based on the primacy of consent, the pursuit of peace is the norm of democratic states. In contrast, because Arab-Islamic culture is based on the primacy of coercion, the foreign policy norm of Arab-Islamic states is intimidation and conquest. Jihad (holy war) is a basic Islamic principle, which is why Moslem violence will be found throughout the world.
(5) Whereas democracy is based on the primacy of the individual, Arab-Islamic culture is based on the primacy of the group—be it the village or the extended family. The individual Moslem has no identity outside the group; it is to the group that he owes all his loyalty. This is one reason why internecine conflict has been endemic among Arabs throughout history.
(6) Contemporary democracy is regarded as a process by which various individuals pursue their private interests and have diverse values or “lifestyles.” This is not the case in Arab-Islamic culture, which binds everyone to the set of substantive values prescribed in the Koran and in Islamic law (the SHARIA).
(7) Whereas contemporary democracy is inclined toward moral relativism, Islam is based on absolutism. The former conduces to tolerance, the latter to intolerance. Admittedly, Islamic regimes tolerate non-Islamic minorities, but only as dhimmies or second-class citizens.
(8) Democratic societies are preoccupied with the present (the “now”). Conversely, Arab-Islamic culture exists under the aspect of eternity. What dominates Islamic mentality is the past and the future, which is why revenge for past injuries is a dominant motif of the Arab world. And given their group loyalty, Moslems are religiously bound to wreak vengeance against those who have slighted the honor of any Moslem.
(9) The openness or publicity found in democracy stands in striking contrast to the hiddenness, secrecy, and dissimulation characteristic of Islam. As one liberated Arab sociologist writes: “Lying is a widespread habit among the Arabs, and they have a low idea of truth.”
(10) Whereas contemporary democracy is rooted in secularism, Arab-Islamic culture is rooted in religion. Even Arab leaders who are not devout Muslims identify with the basic goals of Islam. The radical separation of religion and politics found in democracy is foreign to Islamic regimes.
Given the above contradictions, one must be very naïve indeed to expect Islamic regimes to become democratic in the foreseeable future. Those who believe that scientific technology will transform Muslims into bourgeois democrats forget that Nazi Germany was not only the world’s leader in science and technology, but also the home of philosophy and humane literature. Scientific-technology will only arm Arab tyrants.
That Germany is now a democracy is only the consequence of its having been conquered in war. The same applies to Japan. Democracy was imposed on these two regimes. Which suggests that the only way to democratize Islamic regimes is to conquer them! Trouble is there are about 56 of them and more than one billion Muslims on planet Earth.
And so some Washington policy-makers—and even certain Israelis—are dreaming of a model democracy on the “West Bank,” a free and prosperous Palestinian state that will inspire and eventually transform the Islamic world! Amazing the heights of human ignorance and arrogance. But then, has not Shimon Peres said one can learn nothing from history?