Politics of the Middle East - Essay Example

Day Month Year Politics of the Middle East – Mid Term Take Home Exam Part I When people think of the Middle East, they tend to think of a series of countries that are connected by a common religion and, therefore, they have a common thread to their way of life. While it may be true that significant majority of those in the Middle East believe and adhere to the principles of Islam, this does not mean, however, that each country has a similar culture. Culture is much more than simply a depiction of the religion in a region. Culture refers to a total way of life. This involves the landscape, or geography of country, political ideologies, language, climate, radical beliefs in terms of religion, food, and much more. Goldsmith Jr. (2010) accurately discusses this very point when he makes the claim that, “The countries of the Middle Easy have very diverse political systems, each reflecting a given country’s historical background, colonial experience or lack thereof, social and economic conditions, religious tendencies, geography, climate, and demographic pressures. Nevertheless, the regions political systems derived from the same source and throughout the shifts retained the essential features that had characterized it”. This claim is quite interesting and deserves much consideration. The aim of this essay is to determine the validity of this conclusion and to create a foundation by which the Arab Spring of 2012 can be evaluated and seen as a fresh start to the Arab regimes of today moving forward. Historically, governments throughout the Arab world has been structured according to Islamic tradition and law in one form or another. This dates back to the Constitution of Medina, which was established by the Prophet Muhammad himself. This constitution provides the framework for Islamic tradition. The Prophet Muhammad is a revered figure and, while this establishment of a constitution did not imply written government law, it served to form the foundation for Muslim culture world wide. This culture has existed for centuries, and remains to this day. As mankind advances intellectually and technologically, however, the Arab Spring is an example of an increasing frustration with long standing values and principles that have remained in place across generations. It must be noted that the Arab Spring is not a fight against Islam. On the contrary, it is a fight for more individual freedoms and rights and a gradual loosening of cultural restrictions that have been in place since the time of the Prophet. This needs to be balanced with a desire to maintain a strong Islamic faith, which when coupled with cultural norms, can prove quite difficult to do. From the foundation of Islam, much of the Arab world was tribal based. There were multiple tribes and families represented, and Muhammad saw Islam as a way to bring them all together under a common religious banner. This Constitution, therefore, was the first formal agreement amongst all of the tribes represented in the region, and actually led the way to the formation of the first Islamic state in the region. At the time of Muhammad, and as we have learned through various course readings, countless tribes and clans in and around Medina were engaged in a long lasting battle that was bitter and had no end in sight. Upon establishing the Constitution of Medina, the Prophet Muhammad envisioned that a lasting peace could be enacted. He did this by instituting a formal system of rights and responsibilities for all people living in the region, of different religions, so that they could all peacefully coexist with one another, even if adhering to different faiths. While many cultural traditions and lifestyles have remained the same throughout the Arab world for centuries, much has changed in the way the countries in the region are organized. While the Constitution of Medina may have provided a solid structure that organized the region into one system consisting of multiple cultures, this has now given way to a more divided region today, with one common religion at its core. The Arab Empire stretches across various regions and strives to combine many different cultures under religious umbrella. This has, over time, resulted in numerous military conflicts, many of which have never really been resolved. This has also increased tribal tensions within each respective border, which has further contributed to the unrest we now see appearing in the form of the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring, to a large degree, forms from a desire on the part of the people to form a more democratically principled government and culture. This would not necessarily, however, serve the purposes of the revolution itself. As Lewis (2005) states, “In a genuinely free election, fundamentalists would have several substantial advantages over moderates and reformers” (50). Fundamentalists, being rooted in culture and tradition, will speak a language and use terminology and implement programs that are more familiar with the general populace. It would be difficult from those from outside political parties to gain support under such tradition-based obstacles. Lewis continues this line of thinking by noting that even reformers attend the mosque and greatly respect religious leaders. As they listen and absorb political ideology of the day, a democratic election would likely result in a fundamentalist government maintaining control (Lewis 50). This can be seen throughout the history of the Arab World. The Ottoman Empire stretches centuries because of the grip that strong leaders hold on the people under a religiously strict culture. Consider the demise of the Ottoman Empire itself. With the reign of Muhammad Ali Pasha in Egypt, the Ottoman Empire was largely discarded over time, only to be replaced with a strong regime spanning nearly 147 years (Colvin 250). After that, the fundamentalists gained control in 1952, only to recently lose control during the Arab Spring. Now, with democratic elections, modern reform parties are still finding it quite difficult to break into national politics, and control of the country is again slowly siding the way of fundamentalism. Today, there is an elaborate system of territorial nations that form the basis for the entire Middle East and, indeed, Arab world. The Prophet Muhammad likely did not envision this when he drafted the Constitution of Medina, yet that is where we are today. This system of territorial nations largely consists of a Muslim dominated population and majority, but various sects and practices of the religion take place. This system of ‘Wattaniyas’ continues today and forms the basis for the remainder of this essay, leading up to the recent Arab Spring of revolution that has been occurring recently. Over the time that Islam has been in existence, belief systems and ideologies have been altered. You have for example, the Sunni and Shiite branches becoming the two most dominant players. Countries tend to be typically dominated by one branch or the other. Iraq and Iran are two examples of modern day regimes whose countries are divided territorially. Tribal disputes and disagreements over fundamentalists and conservatives have hit the country particularly hard. The countries of Iran and Saudi Arabia, just to name a few, are actual Islamic states where the government is ruled largely by religious influence. Other countries in the Arab world are dominated by a Monarchy, while still others are governed as a secular state. This hodgepodge of different governments and regime changes has slowly created a people that are largely disenfranchised and ready for change. This knowledge directly relates to the claim made by Goldsmith by demonstrating the effect that certain demographic pressures have caused in the region. The development, over centuries, of various Arab regimes has created a truly diverse system of politics, while all the while trying desperately to retain the cultural and religious characteristics that built the region in the first place. Goldsmith’s (2010) statement likely did not take into account the growing tension that was building in the Arab world between a need to retain religious values and a desire to enjoy many of the modern cultural advances enjoyed in other areas around the globe. Prior to the Arab Spring, it was largely believed that the people of the Middle East would continue to accept their political systems because the principles therein were based largely on Islamic principles that are nonnegotiable in the eyes of the people, and the government. Since the countries of the Middle East are largely bonded together by a common thread, any shifts in political culture would largely be restrained by, as Goldsmith put it, by the essential features that had characterized it for the past few centuries. While this logic seem sound at the time, it does appear that the Arab Spring is slowly beginning to chip away at this thought process, as people move more and more towards creating governments based on democratic freedoms and equality, while trying to hold on the principles of Islam. We heard a great deal about the Arab Spring in recent years, yet talk is slowly dying down. New Arab regimes are creeping up throughout the Middle East in places such as Bahrain, Egypt, and Libya. Other countries are slowly trying to accomplish the same feat. Other countries, such as Iran and Syria, have fiercely resisted such change and the struggle continues. The common thread behind these revolutions, based on news account, in addition to course lectures and readings, seems to be that individuals in the Middle East are fighting for freedoms long denied them, while desiring to hang onto their traditional ideals revered in their faith. Balancing modern political thought with traditional religious principles is a difficult, and daunting task. Henry Siegman (1962) notes this struggle when he writes that, “There is little question that the idea of Arab nationalism has a powerful hold on the imagination of the peoples of the Middle East, and no Arab leader is strong enough to ignore its appeal” (246). The rivalries between tribes that have dominated the region for centuries have so divided the people to this day, that lasting political change is difficult to even fathom. Yet, over time, it appears that people are in fact coming together under the common banner of change. We saw Sunnis and Shiites during the Arab Spring standing side by side advocating for political change. Young people, feeling desperate by decades of poverty and poor employment prospects, have come to the realization that their own political systems were failing them. To fight back, they have felt little choice but to push that governments be reformed and control turned over to the people. Since the people of the Middle East have not truly governed their lands since the time of the Prophet, the Arab Spring cannot be considered complete after one season of tumultuous protests. In conclusion, much of the Middle East and Arab world has had a continuous stream of Islamic based government for decades, if not centuries. It was simply understood that this traditionally based system of governance would continue for generations to come. In one swift season, however, the Arab Spring certainly re-directed this idea. The continuity of most governments in the region is now threatened. Political leaders throughout the Middle East are now wise to listen to the voices of the masses and to consider their ideological opinions. Change will likely be slow, but the process has been set in motion. The day will come, in all probability, when more countries in the Middle East will alter their political systems to be more in line with the world community. This should be done with caution, however, and with an eye on the bigger picture. Also, in the end, Islam should be protected and form the basis for the faith of the Arab people, because in the Middle East, culture is religion. It is their way of life. They simply need to find a way to provide a more stable and equal political system for the citizenry, while protecting the rights of Islam and its rightful place in the lives of the people. Hopefully this can be achieved soon so that the Arab people can return to the peaceful way of life that the Prophet Muhammad envisioned when he established the Constitution of Medina all those centuries ago. Part II – Question # 1 The debate surrounding Palestine is quite complicated. It has a storied history and one that is still evolving. While a great deal of the debate centers on geographical control of land, it is also quite religious in nature. What started out as a control over land has turned largely into a religious debate, which is territorial in nature. The POL and Hamas have been involved in numerous debates, for example, about how to best handle Israel. It must be noted that Israel and Palestine lay claim to the same land, yet Palestine often loses out and has been denied statehood by much of the world community. The two organizations discussed in this essay, however, differ in terms of their approach to the Israeli and Palestine situation and they form the basis for a most interesting conversation that impacts the world today and for generations to come. For decades, the Palestinians have fought fiercely for their independence. During this time, there were long periods where it seemed that the plight of their cause was going unheard in the world community. We know from the readings by Dowty (2005), however, that there has been a recent resurgence in their political power. As stated in the Palestine Declaration of Independence back in 1988, “Palestinian resistance was clarified and raised into the forefront of Arab and world awareness, as the struggle of the Palestinian Arab people achieve unique prominence among the world’s liberation movements in the modern era” (Dowty, 2005, p. 105). The resolve of both the PLO and Hamas in achieving these aims has been striking, yet their methods could not be more different. Hamas believe that the very identity of the Palestinian people is at stake when considering their desire to reclaim the territory that is now Israel. Believing that the Israeli’s have long since laid claim to land that is rightly, in their view, reserved for the Palestinian people, has created an escalating and violent conflict that continue to this day. Hamas leadership advocates that Allah be ruler over every area of Palestine. This includes Israel, and there is no room for debate. The Hamas organization does not recognize the country of Israel, nor does it recognize the right of the Jewish people to occupy the land reserved for Palestinians. This can be further understood when one considers that the name ‘Hamas’ comes from the Arabic phrased meaning ‘Islamic Resistance Movement’. This very name implies that its members have fervor to carry out their chief objective, which is namely the ultimate destruction of Israel. They believe strongly in this concept and it forms the basis for its very identity. Because Hamas does not really have a tactic to deal with Israel, as they firmly call for the countries ultimate demise, the argument that the debate between Hamas and the PLO rests more with the identity of the Palestinian people seems to be based on sound logic. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) used to have many of the same feelings towards Israel as Hamas does today. As recently as 1967, for example, the PLO also advocated strongly for the destruction of the Israel. While many members still inwardly long for this goal to be achieved, the larger organization now advocates for a peaceful coexistence between the Palestinian and Jewish people. This aim will be difficult to achieve, but the PLO now seems more willing than ever to use diplomatic means, rather than force, to settle various ongoing land disputes. Hamas would argue that this policy is forsaking the identity of the Palestinian people and that no concessions should be made. This is where the center of this debate lies. One organization, Hamas, seems bent on using violence to achieve their objectives, while the PLO seems much more willing to talk first and fight later. It is useful to consider the progress that has been in this struggle for regional peace and stability. As Dowty (2005) notes, “The first pass at peace, in short, produced some changes in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that are unlikely to be reverse: mutual recognition, majority consensus on a two-state solution, the sense that a Palestinian state is inevitable, and the further disengagement of Arab states” (168). It is on these issues that the PLO and Israel have found some common ground. As we have uncovered, however, even the eventual recognition of Palestine as a state will likely not be enough to appease Hamas. Many in the region question if peace and Hamas can ever coexist. As Dowty mentions in his expose, many attempts have failed at lasting peace accords. As recently as 2000, there was hope that the sides involved gathered at Camp David in the United States. Even those talks, however, ended in failure, resulting in violent outbreaks throughout the region in September of 2000. Many question the resolve of the Palestinian people given the fact that as of 2000, more than 98 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank no longer lived under direct Israeli occupation (Dowty 156). This seems to indicate a possible and firm unwillingness on the part of Hamas to truly coexist with Israel. With this fact in mind, is lasting peace truly possible until religious differences and years of tribal hatred get resolved? Only time will truly tell. Part II – Question # 3 There are many differences to be noted between political ideology that is religiously based, such as in much of the Arab world, and ideology that is based on individual freedoms and rights, such as is the case in much of the Western world. Muslim political theory does place much emphasis on justice and community. The rights and freedoms of the individual are often forsaken in exchange for the greater good of society. Political theory in the West, however, does tend to espouse individual freedoms that are believed to be more important than focusing on the right of the community. This forms the basis of democratic thinking. This brief essay will explore the differences between these two political ideologies and attempt to expose the commonalties and differences between the two. Islam is not only a religion; it is a way of life that has transcended generations. The faith itself is a guide towards how one should conduct both their private and public lives. Islam pervades the very soul and essence of Muslims around the world. While Muslims in the West carry out their religious beliefs within the context of democratic and pluralistic society, those in the Arab world see their very political ideology shaped by the words of the Prophet Muhammad himself. Professor Mendilow eloquently states this when he recounts the way in which the Qur’an has been passed down from generation to generation. For centuries, community life has been dictated by the words and events recounted in the Holy Book for Muslims. For most of the Arab world, the Qur’an, for example, prescribes their sense of justice. This is in contrast to the political concepts of the Western world. The democratic societies of the West see religion as just one of many guiding forces in shaping the political ideology of the land. While religious principles may guide some of the decisions that are made, and certainly shape the culture in many locations, the values of freedom and individualism often supersede what is contained in a religious document. So, while religious doctrine does play a part in the process, just as in the Muslim world, such doctrine does not pervade the life of the individual. As mentioned in class, and in various readings, much of the Arab world is based on the strong sense of community. Our very lecture notes discuss how Islam has remained so influential in the world today. Begining as a religion that was seen as vital to the success of various tribes scattered throughout the Middle East, it has been the guiding force that gave people living in poverty something to aspire towards. No matter if a Muslim is rich or poor today, they tend to espouse the very same political ideology that was promoted back many centuries ago. This entails forsaking the will of the individual to look for ways to provide for a more collective purpose in society. One of the five pillars of Islam, in fact, discusses the important of making worldly goods and possessions available for all. While this is also a value in the Western world, it does not shape who the people are and they do not consider religion much, if any, a part of the political process. In conclusion, we must be mindful that Islam is truly a culture unto its own. The lecture notes mention, for example, the cautions of various Imams’ through the ages to guard against the cultural influences of the West. Muslim ideology teaches that Western institutions turn believers away from their own faith. It implies that Western culture is based merely on materialism and the will of the individual. The two ideologies, therefore, while similar in some ways, are starkly different from one another. While the Arab Spring of recent years is slowly opening up the Arab world to democratic principles, it will be difficult to discount the role that religions plays in the democratic process altogether. It is not likely that centuries of tradition based on a religion that so important to billions of people would be cast away overnight. This is part of the beauty that makes the world so diverse and interesting to be a part of. Works Cited Colvin, Peter. “Muhammad Ali Pasha, the Great Exhibition of 1851, and the School of Oriental and African Studies Library.” Libraries and Culture, 33.3 (1998): 249-259. Dowty, Alan. “The Re-emergency of the Palestinians.” Israel/Palestine, 1.1 (2005): 105-168. Fictoroff, J. “The Mind of the Terrorist: A Review and Critique of Psychological Approaches. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49.1 (2005): 3-42. Lewis, Bernard. “Freedom and Justice in the Modern Middle East.” Foreign Affairs, 84.3 (2005): 36-51. Morrow, J. (1994). Game Theory for Political Scientists. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Siegman, Henry. “Arab Unity and Disunity.” The Middle East Journal, 16.1 (1962): 245-254. Yilmaz, Sait. “Question of Strategy in Counter-Terrorism: Turkish Case”. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2.1 (2011): 140-151. Read More