Ezra Klein: Of Ayatollahs and Imams

« The Politics of Branding | Main | Mother Jones Rock »

February 01, 2005

Of Ayatollahs and Imams

Somewhere in Mother Jones's impossible to navigate archives, Brad Plumer writes:

it might not be the end of the world if democracy in the Middle East gave rise to Islamic governments, as many have feared. Eventually, these leaders have to keep the country running smoothly, and they need to answer to voters. An overly-zealous and incompetent government could well turn people away from religion altogether, or promote the development of a secular society, as we're seeing in Basra.

That's a pretty undercovered point. So long as religion is kept out of the public sphere, it gets to play in rhetorical fantasy lands and promise all sorts of utopias for the glorious day when it takes hold of the government. That, for instance, is exactly what what Ayatollah Khomeini used to fuel the Iranian revolution. Religion, which by nature is conceptually unmoored from the terrestrial realities that constrain (if only slightly) the promises of most political parties, can promise nothing short of paradise, and nothing more specific, which allows all aspects of society to project their own desires onto the moral perfection to come. Once the demagogues reach office and start restricting freedom, imposing Shari'a, and mishandling the economy, however, support drops fast. If we're dealing with a democracy that means the theocrats need to respond to popular opinion or lose power.

But that's a big if. Under democracy, it might almost be best for the Islamists to take power. Let them attempt faith-based economics in an already-ravaged economy and lose their public support. If the democracy is weak, however, popular discontent will lead the regime to oppress its people or, in the doomsday scenario, pick a scapegoat and distract their supporters by hunting down the Sunnis. Then you have civil war. So while an Islamist regime spending itself out and getting voted down would be great, it's not a chance that can be taken unless the democracy is independently strong or externally guaranteed, and I'm not sure Americans have the stomach for the latter.

February 1, 2005 in Iraq | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8343604f653ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Of Ayatollahs and Imams:

Comments

As opposed to whatever we're calling the state of armed anarchy that prevails now? Mere civil war sounds positively peaceful by comparison.

Posted by: Musing Michael | Feb 1, 2005 11:08:41 AM

We're getting better archives soon!

Also, the Amy Hawthorne paper I linked to yesterday seems to suggest that the nascent Islamic movements now in existence are much, much less benign then I've tended to think. (Well, me and Reuel Marc Gerecht.) But yeah, I agree with your larger point -- it's certainly a danger.

Khomeini's a good example -- it seems that he really solidified the Islamic revolution in order to distract people from Iran's economic woes. He was also lucky in that he had a) a boogeyman named America to rail against, b) a strong Marxist opposition that called for demonizing. But something like that doesn't seem unrepeatable.

Posted by: Brad Plumer | Feb 1, 2005 12:22:37 PM

Brad -- Word on Khomeini. You're not the only one who's read The Persian Puzzle (though, at this point, you may be the only one to have finished it...)

Posted by: Ezra | Feb 1, 2005 12:24:23 PM

it might not be the end of the world if democracy in the ~~Middle East~~ USA gave rise to ~~Islamic~~ conservative kleptocratic governments, as many have feared. Eventually, these leaders have to keep the country running smoothly, and they need to answer to voters. An overly-zealous and incompetent government could well turn people away from ~~religion~~ corruption altogether, or promote the development of a ~~secular~~ free society, as we're seeing in ~~Basra~~ NYC.

This strategy is not working so well.

Posted by: Chasseur | Feb 1, 2005 12:42:06 PM

all those STRIKEs and /STRIKEs for naught!

Posted by: chasseur | Feb 1, 2005 12:43:05 PM

Sorry: long-ass comment follows.

The same argument could have been used about the Communists in many countries: that their incompetence in economics would be highlighted and popular revulsion would sweep them out of power. The problem, of course, is that it took decades of oppression and military conflicts in many of these countries for this to occur.

As you point out, the problem I have with this argument is that, once they took power, the theocrats would possibly/probably subvert the very democratic infrastructure that allowed them to power.

Of course there will be scapegoats to distract the population from the theocrats' incompetence and one of the primary scapegoats in this scenario (an Islamist govt. in Iraq) may be us.

So what then? We have a theocratic government, oppressive and not accountable, who will probably use both us (remember, one of the most demagogic argument a theocracy can make is to end the "American oppression" and demagogue the lack of Iraqi involvement in oil revenues) or it dissolves to ethnic civil war. Leaving aside the fact that we have a moral responsibility to the Iraqi people to leave them in a better position than when we started the invasion (and, yes, while I opposed the invasion, we do have a moral and prestige issue involved in Iraq), it isn't in our national interest to have this scenario follow to the conclusion.

But, regrettably, this might be a likely scenario. We have to support democracy but, at the same time, we do not have the will or the capital to guarantee democratic structures in Iraq for decades.

Posted by: Chris Rasmussen | Feb 1, 2005 12:49:50 PM

Perhaps a bit off topic but nevertheless somewhat relevant, as far as the undermining and/or fleeting of democratic princples. Shouldn't people be discussing the following study

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/31/students.amendment.ap/index.html

"Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories."

I understand the need not to drown in hyperbole after reading this story, but isn't pretty damn disconcerning to read that a rather large percent of American high school students don't respect the rights of the First Amendment? That so many students believe the government should be able to censor media content? Of course this isn't Khomeini's Iran but still, let's take a minute and reflect on the democratic principles in our nation.

I guess I am personally awe-struck to these findings because I am particularly concerned about our education's growing trend to neglect the importance of independent and critical thought in favor of simply learning how to past tests, an opinion I formed based on my own experience in schools as well as anecdotes from teachers. What is a democracy without citizens willing to freely challenge and openly question the government?

I know this comment is slightly off-topic but given the nature of the concern I hope it demands some relevance to this discussion.

Posted by: Steve C | Feb 1, 2005 1:20:08 PM

Once the demagogues reach office and start restricting freedom, imposing Shari'a, and mishandling the economy, however, support drops fast.

(Or so you'd think.)

Let them attempt faith-based economics in an already-ravaged economy and lose their public support.

(Or so you'd think.)

(But, then, how did Bush win?)

Posted by: heh | Feb 1, 2005 9:54:03 PM

A better analogy than Iran or hypothetical Islamic democracies is India. Last year, the BJP - the nationalist, fundamentalist Hindu party - was summarily booted from office by the same unwashed masses who elected it in the first place.
Whey?
They didn't deliver, economically, to the hundreds of millions of desperately poor they were claiming to represent.
Now, there are all sorts of reasons the India might be a model of democracy we can only DREAM about taking hold in most of the Islamic world, but it's definitely a good possible model in this case.

Posted by: jkd | Feb 2, 2005 4:31:49 PM

sexe homme pour femme video bijoux fimo homme costume de marie pour homme sexe gratuit homme photo vestiaire homme homme slip calvin homme gay flyer chemise ralph lauren homme petits sexe homme bijoux argent homme sex gay homme homme qui porte des collant les droit de l homme bafoue photo homme velus body slip homme sexy homme veste kaki homme femme cherche homme quebec declaration universelle droit homme preambule pull ras du cou homme vieille femme cherche jeune homme homme cherche femme seul soiree coquin sexe homme recherche femme sex veste homme coton
homme soumis cherche maitresse tee shirt homme grossiste homme docile soumis vente cosmetique homme sm recit homme soumis pantalon jeans diesel achat homme jeune homme poilu manteau street wear homme discrimination entre homme et femme homme soumis sm pantalon homme avec pince tee shirt direction taille homme muscle homme nu homme tee shirt recit homme soumis sexe dessin homme et femme tee shirt blanc homme recherche homme black sac bandouliere homme homme masque fer histoire couple cherche homme elle couple bi cherche homme bi agen galerie gratuite masturbation homme dolce gabbana shirt homme video mere avec jeune homme sac et baiseenville homme