EUGENE'S CONCERNS ABOUT IMPOSING AMERICAN IDEALS ON A DEEPLY ISLAMIC COUNTRY

[Michael MASINTER]

Recognizing that we have wandered some distance from the list, I might
suggest reading Samuel Huntington's book, The Clash of Civilizations and
the Remaking of World Order, and then Fouad Ajami's collection of essays
written in response, including a response by Huntington.

Huntington's argument is that democracy arises only in civilizations in
which the state and religion are separate, and that those conditions
prevail only in the civilization we have come to call the west, and in
Hindu civilization.  Absent those conditions, "one man, one vote, one
time" can follow, with the resulting imposition of a freely elected
dictatorship, as appeared to have been imminent most recently in Algeria
and Pakistan before each popularly elected government was replaced by a
military coup.

Democracy is a western ideal; it has spread where the west has spread, but
Huntington asserts that "[t]he West won the world not by the superiority
of its ideas or values or religions (to which few members of other
civilizations were converted), but rather by its superiority in applying
organized violence.  Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners
never do."

Huntington's thesis is controversial; see the Ajami collection of essays.

Michael R. Masinter                     3305 College Avenue
Nova Southeastern University            Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314
Shepard Broad Law Center                (954) 262-6151
masinter at nova.edu                       Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel

On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Frank Cross wrote:

> I write again to defend the virtues of democracy in the Middle East.
> Iran is a good test case.  When its legislative and executive offices were
> made relatively democratic, the people elected a much more moderate,
> non-jihad like approach.  It is the non-democratic institutions in Iran,
> including the judiciary, that have continued to press the more radical
> approach.
>
> While we all have seen significant public demonstrations in Islamic
> countries pressing the radical view, it is important to note (a) these
> demonstrations may not truly reflect the will of a majority of the populace
> and (b) they may be motivated in part by the very absence of democracy and
> the fact that the radicals may be the only entities opposing the
> non-democratic regimes of the region.
>
>
> At 03:01 PM 10/15/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >Dear Eugene:
> >        I agree with your below message about the awesomeness of the
> challenge.
> >Interestingly, I have read somewhere that the Arab autocracies feel they
> >cannot afford to give their people the right to vote.  The "people" will
> >vote for Islamic Jihad or worse.  It is a frightful difficulty.  I suspect
> >one reason Israel never annexed the West Bank, and has been reasonably
> >content to let the P.L.O. run most of it recently, is that Israel thinks
> >democracy cannot work among a people educated or propagandized toward
> >mono-culturalism resentment rather than pluralism.  On the other hand, how
> >did MacArthur make it work a pretty good constitution work in Japan?  (OK,
> >not really that good.)  How did we (eventually) make democracy work in
> >Germany?  Both are still deeply racist societies, but can there be any
> >question that we did some real nation-building there?  How, in fact, did we
> >bring sufficient enlightenment to our own deeply religious country so that
> >witch-burning stopped, tolerance replaced theocracy in the colonies with
> >established churches, etc.?  And how did we convince American
> >fundamentalists of all faiths to be reasonably nice to each other?  I can't
> >help believing that at a certain point the public school systems became
> >enormously important in these achievements.  My grand-uncles' greenhorn
> >generation was taught such demeaning things as "hygiene," but were also
> >taught public-spiritedness, toleration, and cheerfulness.  Finally, none of
> >this indoctrination toward citizenship in a plural world came at the
> >expense of a pretty good basic education.
> >Louise
> >
> >
> >At 01:57 PM 10/15/01 , you wrote:
> >>        I wonder how much most of us as specialists in American
> constitutional
> >>law -- perhaps with some knowledge of some other, likely mostly European,
> >>legal systems -- can really say about what would be the best constitution
> >>for Afghanistan.  Is there anyone on this list who is actually an expert on
> >>Afghanistan, who might tell us something about what is likely to work,
> >>either by way of federalism, church-state separation, education policy,
> >>women's rights, and so on?
> >>
> >>        I certainly don't want to be too much of a relativist here.  I do
> >>think it
> >>would be best for us and for them if Afghanistan became a liberal democracy,
> >>with equal treatment for women, at least a West European level of separation
> >>of church and state, some degree of federalism, and a variety of other good
> >>things.  But I'm also aware that these policies, even if good in an abstract
> >>sense, might be sufficiently hard to implement in the current Afghan culture
> >>that they will lead to a failure of any government created along those
> >>lines, and perhaps even more dire consequences after that.  And I'm
> >>therefore hesitant to speculate about what constitution Afghanistan should
> >>have, given my utter lack of knowledge on what constitutions many Afghans
> >>will be willing to tolerate and able to implement.  I'd love to hear from
> >>someone who is knowledgeable in Afghan culture and conditions who can speak
> >>to this.
> >>
> >>        Eugene
> >
> Frank Cross
> Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
> CBA 5.202
> University of Texas at Austin
> Austin, TX 78712
>
>