3 ms·
Usually the ones who were proponents of national self-determination and/or assassinated: Yitzhak Rabin (Israel), Yasser Arafat (Palestine), Mohammad Mosaddegh (
by ethbro 8y ago
Usually the ones who were proponents of national self-determination and/or assassinated: Yitzhak Rabin (Israel), Yasser Arafat (Palestine), Mohammad Mosaddegh (Iran, who the US deposed), Anwar Sadat (Egypt), Gamal Abdel Nasser (Egypt), Mohammed Daoud Khan (Afghanistan), Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (Saudi Arabia).
- Cyph0n 8y agoThat's not at a useful metric at all. For example, most of the nationalist/Kemalist leaders were brutal autocrats. I'd argue that the best among them was Borguiba, but I suppose you've never heard of him.
- ethbro 8y agoThat wasn't my metric. It was a historical attribute that many "good leaders in the Middle East" shared. And you specified Middle Eastern, which I took to be exclusive of the Maghreb.
- Cyph0n 8y agoLook up what MENA stands for.
- ethbro 8y agoGotcha. My day job doesn't use foreign policy acronyms. I'm sure there are other examples in North Africa. But 'name good leaders in the Middle East' -> 'here are some good leaders (many of which were nationalists' -> 'most nationalist leaders were autocrats' isn't arguing the same thing. I assume we agree that there were in fact many good leaders in the Middle East? Which was my original point.
- yalph 8y agoFirstly nonsense about most Kemalist leaders being brutal autocrats. Second whats your point?
- Cyph0n 8y agoName one Kemalist leader in the Middle East who did not persecute a segment of the population, or allowed the opposition to participate in fair elections.
- ethbro 8y agoNationalism by definition involves suppressing a segment of the population (usually opposed to the unifying party and/or allied with external parties). It's ugly but true. It also happened in the United States. In Britian. In France. In Germany. In Spain. In Italy. In ancient Greece and Rome. There are lighter / harsher ways of going about it, though the appropriateness of those is also defined by the opposition's actions. Successfully creating a national identity, where there were disparate groups before, breaks a lot of people in the transition.
- Cyph0n 8y ago> Nationalism by definition involves suppressing a segment of the population [...] Great, but what does that have to do with my question, exactly? Were Kemalist leaders not nationalist autocrats? Or are you trying to argue that nationalism is necessary for a country to transition into a democracy?
- yalph 8y agoYou first tell me who the hell you call “Kemalist” then I will tell you whether or not they are Kemalist at all. Dont throw around “Kemalist” liberally to make a point. Then we can discuss further.
- ethbro 8y ago> Or are you trying to argue that nationalism is necessary for a country to transition into a democracy? I'd argue that nationalism is a requisite step for a diverse country, including multiple ethnic or cultural groups within its borders, to become a democracy. (And I'm sure I'm cribbing an old idea in the field here) It seems like there's little basis for common action without a supergroup which includes, binds, and restrains all otherwise oppositional parties inside a legal framework. I'd argue that's why uni-party "democracies" tend to be so fragile. When the party becomes the state, then opponents of the party can only be opponents of the state.