Husam Dughman
Three years ago, a series of popular revolts occurred in the Middle East, triggering off what became known as the Arab Spring. The world was taken by surprise, but many countries around the world welcomed what they interpreted as genuine, democratic grassroots revolutions against repressive, corrupt governments. The US was at the forefront of those most encouraging of the uprisings, justifying its support by stating that “The people have spoken.”
Unlike the British before them, the Americans since World War Two have conducted their foreign policy with a strong injection of idealism. Not that the US has always been idealistic (witness its support for some dictatorships in Latin America, Africa, and Asia when a worse alternative presented itself), but idealism has always occupied an important place in America’s world-view. This partly explains why the US welcomed the revolts of the Arab Spring. The belief, deep-seated within the American psyche, that people are rational and good by nature had led the Americans to assume at the outset of the Arab Spring that what would follow would be the triumph of democracy, secularism, and liberalism in countries like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Syria. A new, great era was expected to unfold in the Middle East, or so thought the US.
To America’s horror, the early results of the Arab Spring ushered in the Islamists, backed up by significant public support, and opened up the Pandora’s Box of terrorism. This created much tension in Tunisia and its Islamist-dominated government. In Egypt, a tug-of-war followed between the Muslim Brotherhood and the army, leading to the removal from power of the former by the latter. Part of Libya’s ongoing misery lies at the door of Islamist intimidation, corruption, kidnappings, and assassinations. And despite the world’s condemnation of Assad in Syria, the real alternative, i.e. Al-Qaeda franchises, started to look very scary, particularly with the rise and triumph of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
The failure by the US to fully understand recent Middle Eastern developments is partly attributable to its idealistic view of democracy and how it really works. Many of America’s decision makers, advised by misguided academics and experts, overestimated the importance of the democracy factor at the expense of that of political culture. They did not really appreciate the fact that what democracy ultimately does in any given country is put the dominant political culture in power. That works well if the prevailing political culture is secular, liberal, and democratic (as in Western Europe and the US). However, if such political culture is totalitarian (e.g., Nazi, Communist, or Islamist), then what one gets in power is a totalitarian government (Nazi, Communist, or Islamist). On this basis, what has happened in the Middle East since the beginning of the Arab Spring is hardly surprising: People whose political cultures are predominantly totalitarian overthrew their repressive governments, held democratic elections, and replaced the old regimes with their own totalitarian governments or militias.
The US’s misunderstanding of the Middle East is not new. In the several decades following World War Two, America’s foreign policy makers, supported by academics, considered the military in the region to be a modernizing force. This contributed to the overthrow of constitutional monarchies in Egypt, Iraq, and Libya, which ultimately resulted in the emergence of the destructive, totalitarian, pan-Arabist governments of Nasser, Saddam Hussein, and Qaddafi, all of whom subsequently became anti-American and serious sources of mindless violence and instability inside their own countries and abroad. A former ally of the US, the Afghan Mujahidin fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, later turned on the US and launched terrorist attacks against Americans, culminating in the horrors of 9/11. And now, one sees a considerable number of American scholars, advisers, and politicians attempting to apologize for Islamists (namely, those who want to run the state and society according to religion) by claiming that the West, especially the US, should reach out to “moderate” Islamists like the “peaceful”, “non-violent” Muslim Brotherhood.
What those commentators fail to understand is that totalitarian ideologies are inherently incompatible with democracy. First, and in contrast to the secular liberal-democratic system, their legitimacy is not derived from the people; instead, it is derived from, e.g. God and his laws (Islamism), the Politburo and Marx’s philosophy (Communism), or Hitler’s worldview (Nazism). Second, the propensity of totalitarian movements to exploit the democratic system in order to win votes, followed by their dismemberment of that system once they are well-entrenched in power, makes them a lethal danger to the very idea of democracy.
The above is supported by historical evidence, for this clearly shows that when a totalitarian ideology comes to power democratically, it dismantles the very democratic system it had used to attain power: Hitler became the leader of Germany because his popularity at the ballot box forced a very reluctant President Hindenburg to appoint him Chancellor of that country. Hitler later nullified democracy and established a dictatorship. More recently, Hamas came to power in Gaza by democratic means, but has since set up a tyranny. Communists too have a similar mentality, as evidenced by their own historical record: Once in power, always in power. For those reasons, the European Union once imposed sanctions on Austria when the party of Haider, a Nazi sympathizer, became part of a coalition government in that country. Hamas’s initial democratic election has not given it much credence either. Likewise, the American political/ military establishment would never have allowed a Communist party to come to power in the US even if that had been the wish of the majority of the American people.
The roots of totalitarianism and terrorism in the Middle East are largely endemic and locally-inspired. However, through misconceptions, misunderstanding, and wishful thinking the US has added fuel to the fire. It did so when it encouraged the replacement of three of the best forms of governments in the modern Middle East- the constitutional monarchies of Egypt, Libya, and Iraq - with repressive, dictatorial military regimes that produced Nasser, Qaddafi, and Saddam Hussein. The US also made things worse when it put its faith in the “heroism” of the anti-Soviet Afghan Mujahidin, thereby leading to their considerable empowerment with training, weaponry, and resources, all of which subsequently served the likes of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda well. And now, the US looks on the verge of doing more harm by looking for “moderate” Islamists, with the great risk that America will be placing its trust in a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
What the US must do henceforth is to avoid being hung up on the idea of democracy; instead, it ought to shift its focus to the nature of political cultures in the region and act accordingly: If the dominant political culture in a certain country is clearly in favour of secularism, liberalism, and democracy, the US should encourage regime change if the people of that country so wish. However, if the dominant political culture in such a country appears to be totalitarian, the US had better refrain from any such encouragement; otherwise, it might find itself face to face with a new, totalitarian government that could conceivably be even worse than the previous government it had replaced.
The lesson of Syria in this particular connection is instructive: Assad’s regime is brutal, but the alternative- Islamists, including jihadists, Al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) - is undoubtedly worse. Consequently, those should not be encouraged to come to power since, if they did, not only would they persecute Syrians, especially women and minorities, more than Assad has ever done, but they would also in all likelihood raise tensions in the region by posing a deadly threat to their neighbours, above all Israel, as well as build a strong base from which to launch horrific terrorist attacks on Western, especially American, targets. At all levels- national, regional, and international- the Islamists would be worse than Assad.
What matters most in today’s Middle East is not that the people have spoken, but what they have spoken.
About the author
Husam Dughman comes from a family that is historically descended from Europeans on his father’s side and Middle Easterners on his mother’s side. He was born in Libya and educated in Libya and the United Kingdom. Before Qaddafi came to power, Husam Dughman’s father had been the president of the University of Libya and his maternal grandfather had been a prime minister. Immediately following Qaddafi’s military coup d’état in 1969, both stood up to the Qaddafi regime and were consequently imprisoned: Husam Dughman’s father was incarcerated for a period of 10 years, during which he was subjected to regular torture by the Qaddafi regime, and his grandfather was incarcerated for five years.
In the 1990s, Husam Dughman returned to Libya and worked as a university professor of political science. Due to conflicts with the Qaddafi regime, he resigned from his university position in 1997 and subsequently worked in legal translation. Years later, Husam Dughman left Libya for North America, where he has been working as a Newcomer specialist, helping new immigrants with their settlement. He currently resides in the United States.
Husam Dughman has recently published a book, Tête-à-tête with Muhammad, and he has also published various articles about the Middle East. You can find out more by visiting his website at http://www.husamdughman.com