9 ms·

I know many from various Middle Eastern countries who share a similar viewpoint. As an Arab myself, I see it as nothing more than a defeatist attitude that is

by Cyph0n 8y ago

I know many from various Middle Eastern countries who share a similar viewpoint. As an Arab myself, I see it as nothing more than a defeatist attitude that is typically held by those who have enough money and connections (typically upper class). Safety and democracy can coexist and are not mutually exclusive as you claim. The safest countries in the world are democracies last I checked. Democracy is not only about “abstract notions of liberty”, but also (and more importantly) about justice and equality for all. When these “lesser-educated” people are held in prison without trial for watching the wrong Youtube video or practicing the wrong religion, they also realize this fact.

whatshisface 8y ago
I guess the problem is that if the government doesn't represent the people it will become a far greater risk to the average person's safety than criminals ever were.
- luckylion 8y ago
  "Criminals" as in "a thief in a modern society": certainly. "Criminals" as in "an aggressive group/tribe that will enslave or murder you if giving the chance": probably not.
0815test 8y ago
The thing that makes authoritarianism superficially attractive in the Middle East is the absolute lack of anything even loosely resembling civil-society institutions of the sorts that are ubiquitous in Western societies. Why allow basic freedoms when the people aren't going to use them for the good of society? It's a vicious cycle and a very thorny issue to address. Ironically enough, the closest thing these folks get to actual civil society, is their religious institutions - the mosques, the madrassas and so forth. This also makes Islamic fundamentalism a lot more seductive to them than it might otherwise be, because in many ways they experience religion as the best working, least corrupt, etc. part of their society, and they naturally seek something that can replicate that relative openness and lack of corruption across the board.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Exactly. This was the tragedy of post-"Arab Spring" Egypt: the country had been run as a military dictatorship under a permanent "state of emergency". In 2011 it was overthrown by what we might glibly call Twitter liberals, through the takeover of Tahrir Square and struggles with the police. Reasonably free and fair elections were held for the first time. And who did the people elect? The Muslim Brotherhood, an international illiberal Islamist group in favour of mandatory veils. So there had to be another military coup, the establishment of a constitution banning religious parties, and another go at elections.
  - Cyph0n 8y ago
    Ah, the good old Western pundit view of the Egyptian revolution. I was waiting for this! There had to be a coup? What happened to elections? And it is unfair to omit the fact that said coup involved a brutal massacre. If you don’t deny that the elections were free and fair, then it is none of your business who the citizens of a sovereign state decide to elect. This is democracy 101.
    - pjc50 8y ago
      I appreciate that this all looks a bit Allende, but the MB government collapsed from within due to popular protest. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-egypt-mistakes-specialreport/special-report-how-the-muslim-brotherhood-lost-egypt-idUSBRE96O07H20130725 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-egypt-mistakes-specialrep... > it is none of your business who the citizens of a sovereign state decide to elect. This rather depends on what the new government is actually doing and whether it's getting people killed in the street again.
- Cyph0n 8y ago
  You are looking at this the wrong way: no civil society exists because there are no freedoms. The correct question to ask is: why participate in civil society if the president can just shut it all down after a bad breakfast? Counterexample time! Lebanon and Tunisia. I’m from Tunisia, so I can talk about that a bit more if you like, but a strong civil society has rapidly formed since the 2011 revolution. Granted, we have had a relatively active civil society pre-2011, but it has flourished immensely post-2011. I think you’re also a bit off with your point on why Islamic fundamentalism becomes attractive. Yes, in many Muslim countries, mosques become the only refuge for discourse, but Islamic fundamentalism typically comes to the forefront only when these freedoms are clamped down on. People who used to seek refuge from autocracy in the mosque now find that all doors have been shut in their faces, so they naturally look for alternatives. Unfortunately, some end up veering towards extremism...
luckylion 8y ago
> The safest countries in the world are democracies last I checked. More importantly, they are rather wealthy countries with a long history of highly functioning societies and political continuity where power was gradually transferred from royalty to citizenry (typically by force), usually somewhat collectivist (the US being the exception, but they're also not the safest), widespread higher education, without a strong emphasis on tribal kinship. You need a strong foundation to build a fragile house like a liberal democracy, it's not like Western Countries transcended from tribal societies in a constant state of war to modern democracies in a generation or two.
- mc32 8y ago
  Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, even Chile, would say otherwise. It doesn’t require a centuries long history of institutionalized representative government to foster wellbeing.
  - luckylion 8y ago
    You seem to be focusing too much on a single part. My point is that democracy relies on multiple pillars, it's not just a concept that you explain and voila, it works, you need a mix of pre-requirement. If you have none or few of those, chances are you won't keep a democratic system even if installed.
- 0815test 8y ago
  What does a "highly functioning society" look like, in practice? I think you'll find that the answer basically involves widespread awareness (however achieved - e.g., via basic education) of liberal/bourgeois values. It's not rocket surgery! And yes, we don't do nearly as much as would be appropriate to educate people about these, even in the West.
  - luckylion 8y ago
    To me it mostly involves stability, both politically and economically, centralized organization and institutions, and medium and long term predictability. You're certainly right that it doesn't seem complicated on a meta level, but I don't believe that educating people is enough to jump start it. It takes trust in your neighbors, the processes, institutions and the system, and trust needs to be earned and developed.
njepa 8y ago
While I agree with your overall point, I am not sure I would attribute defeatism to the rest of the world so much as the West. It is the West that is set to remove any form of commonality and turn to a state of legalized corruption and nepotism. The Chinese, Russians and Arabs are just copying the West. They are the ones getting the high-rises, roads and subways. And people are actually seeing progress. If the West ever returns to the idea of democratic society where everyone should have access to education, housing and good working conditions. Where we run our countries, our infrastructure and invest in scientific progress together. And where we believe that running businesses in line with the values of society is better. Then they would want democracy as well.
- Zaphods 8y ago
  > The Chinese, Russians and Arabs are just copying the West. The problem with that line of reasoning is that those countries are categorically different from democracies. Those countries do not have the interlocking systems of laws, elections, values, that constitute democracy, things like 1) rule of law 2) private property rights 3) protections for minorities 4) independent judiciaries 5) systematic transitions of power through electoral systems with competing parties 6) independent constitutions that require 2/3rds or more majorities to amend, 7) separation of church and state (this includes cult of personalities), I could go on. Superficially, it seems fair to compare democratic western countries to China, Russia, and Arab monarchies/dictatorships. But you easily slide into a category error. The very fact that they are not democracies means the people in those countries lack concrete tangible mechanisms and systems to ensure their freedom, independence, and safety, in a productive society that also protects minorities. The people are just fundamentally less free than they would be if they were in a democracy. Your criticisms of western democracies are well founded. The biggest problem in modern democracies is simple greed and regulatory capture (and intensification of capital in a low % of the population but that's connected to greed and regulatory capture). But that's not an argument to adopt a Chinese, Russian, or Arab, system if there is one beyond greed and authoritarian control. That's an argument to fix our democracies (ironically, the idea of fixing a government and society in this way is unique to happening within a democracy, otherwise what are you fighting for? more oppression?). The grass is always greener when you assume you'll be in the powerful, rich, or successful, portion of society. But you can't assume that. So we have democracy.
some_random 8y ago
Right from the article, >The irony is that ECU-911 has not been effective at stopping crime, many Ecuadoreans said, though the system’s installation paralleled a period of falling crime rates. Giving up liberty in exchange for security doesn't work, not really. Any shelter from street criminals gained is lost tenfold to criminals higher up, yet across the world people are jumping at the opportunity to rid themselves (or others) of their rights to fight {terrorism,criminality,child/women abuse,gun violence,scary minorities,drug use}. In the end, the trade off rarely ever has the stated effect and is never worth it.

by Cyph0n 8y ago

whatshisface 8y ago

I guess the problem is that if the government doesn't represent the people it will become a far greater risk to the average person's safety than criminals ever were.

luckylion 8y ago
"Criminals" as in "a thief in a modern society": certainly. "Criminals" as in "an aggressive group/tribe that will enslave or murder you if giving the chance": probably not.

0815test 8y ago

The thing that makes authoritarianism superficially attractive in the Middle East is the absolute lack of anything even loosely resembling civil-society institutions of the sorts that are ubiquitous in Western societies. Why allow basic freedoms when the people aren't going to use them for the good of society? It's a vicious cycle and a very thorny issue to address. Ironically enough, the closest thing these folks get to actual civil society, is their religious institutions - the mosques, the madrassas and so forth. This also makes Islamic fundamentalism a lot more seductive to them than it might otherwise be, because in many ways they experience religion as the best working, least corrupt, etc. part of their society, and they naturally seek something that can replicate that relative openness and lack of corruption across the board.

pjc50 8y ago
Exactly. This was the tragedy of post-"Arab Spring" Egypt: the country had been run as a military dictatorship under a permanent "state of emergency". In 2011 it was overthrown by what we might glibly call Twitter liberals, through the takeover of Tahrir Square and struggles with the police. Reasonably free and fair elections were held for the first time. And who did the people elect? The Muslim Brotherhood, an international illiberal Islamist group in favour of mandatory veils. So there had to be another military coup, the establishment of a constitution banning religious parties, and another go at elections.
- Cyph0n 8y ago
  Ah, the good old Western pundit view of the Egyptian revolution. I was waiting for this! There had to be a coup? What happened to elections? And it is unfair to omit the fact that said coup involved a brutal massacre. If you don’t deny that the elections were free and fair, then it is none of your business who the citizens of a sovereign state decide to elect. This is democracy 101.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    I appreciate that this all looks a bit Allende, but the MB government collapsed from within due to popular protest. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-egypt-mistakes-specialreport/special-report-how-the-muslim-brotherhood-lost-egypt-idUSBRE96O07H20130725 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-egypt-mistakes-specialrep... > it is none of your business who the citizens of a sovereign state decide to elect. This rather depends on what the new government is actually doing and whether it's getting people killed in the street again.
Cyph0n 8y ago
You are looking at this the wrong way: no civil society exists because there are no freedoms. The correct question to ask is: why participate in civil society if the president can just shut it all down after a bad breakfast? Counterexample time! Lebanon and Tunisia. I’m from Tunisia, so I can talk about that a bit more if you like, but a strong civil society has rapidly formed since the 2011 revolution. Granted, we have had a relatively active civil society pre-2011, but it has flourished immensely post-2011. I think you’re also a bit off with your point on why Islamic fundamentalism becomes attractive. Yes, in many Muslim countries, mosques become the only refuge for discourse, but Islamic fundamentalism typically comes to the forefront only when these freedoms are clamped down on. People who used to seek refuge from autocracy in the mosque now find that all doors have been shut in their faces, so they naturally look for alternatives. Unfortunately, some end up veering towards extremism...

luckylion 8y ago

> The safest countries in the world are democracies last I checked. More importantly, they are rather wealthy countries with a long history of highly functioning societies and political continuity where power was gradually transferred from royalty to citizenry (typically by force), usually somewhat collectivist (the US being the exception, but they're also not the safest), widespread higher education, without a strong emphasis on tribal kinship. You need a strong foundation to build a fragile house like a liberal democracy, it's not like Western Countries transcended from tribal societies in a constant state of war to modern democracies in a generation or two.

mc32 8y ago
Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, even Chile, would say otherwise. It doesn’t require a centuries long history of institutionalized representative government to foster wellbeing.
- luckylion 8y ago
  You seem to be focusing too much on a single part. My point is that democracy relies on multiple pillars, it's not just a concept that you explain and voila, it works, you need a mix of pre-requirement. If you have none or few of those, chances are you won't keep a democratic system even if installed.
0815test 8y ago
What does a "highly functioning society" look like, in practice? I think you'll find that the answer basically involves widespread awareness (however achieved - e.g., via basic education) of liberal/bourgeois values. It's not rocket surgery! And yes, we don't do nearly as much as would be appropriate to educate people about these, even in the West.
- luckylion 8y ago
  To me it mostly involves stability, both politically and economically, centralized organization and institutions, and medium and long term predictability. You're certainly right that it doesn't seem complicated on a meta level, but I don't believe that educating people is enough to jump start it. It takes trust in your neighbors, the processes, institutions and the system, and trust needs to be earned and developed.

njepa 8y ago

While I agree with your overall point, I am not sure I would attribute defeatism to the rest of the world so much as the West. It is the West that is set to remove any form of commonality and turn to a state of legalized corruption and nepotism. The Chinese, Russians and Arabs are just copying the West. They are the ones getting the high-rises, roads and subways. And people are actually seeing progress. If the West ever returns to the idea of democratic society where everyone should have access to education, housing and good working conditions. Where we run our countries, our infrastructure and invest in scientific progress together. And where we believe that running businesses in line with the values of society is better. Then they would want democracy as well.

Zaphods 8y ago
> The Chinese, Russians and Arabs are just copying the West. The problem with that line of reasoning is that those countries are categorically different from democracies. Those countries do not have the interlocking systems of laws, elections, values, that constitute democracy, things like 1) rule of law 2) private property rights 3) protections for minorities 4) independent judiciaries 5) systematic transitions of power through electoral systems with competing parties 6) independent constitutions that require 2/3rds or more majorities to amend, 7) separation of church and state (this includes cult of personalities), I could go on. Superficially, it seems fair to compare democratic western countries to China, Russia, and Arab monarchies/dictatorships. But you easily slide into a category error. The very fact that they are not democracies means the people in those countries lack concrete tangible mechanisms and systems to ensure their freedom, independence, and safety, in a productive society that also protects minorities. The people are just fundamentally less free than they would be if they were in a democracy. Your criticisms of western democracies are well founded. The biggest problem in modern democracies is simple greed and regulatory capture (and intensification of capital in a low % of the population but that's connected to greed and regulatory capture). But that's not an argument to adopt a Chinese, Russian, or Arab, system if there is one beyond greed and authoritarian control. That's an argument to fix our democracies (ironically, the idea of fixing a government and society in this way is unique to happening within a democracy, otherwise what are you fighting for? more oppression?). The grass is always greener when you assume you'll be in the powerful, rich, or successful, portion of society. But you can't assume that. So we have democracy.

some_random 8y ago

Right from the article, >The irony is that ECU-911 has not been effective at stopping crime, many Ecuadoreans said, though the system’s installation paralleled a period of falling crime rates. Giving up liberty in exchange for security doesn't work, not really. Any shelter from street criminals gained is lost tenfold to criminals higher up, yet across the world people are jumping at the opportunity to rid themselves (or others) of their rights to fight {terrorism,criminality,child/women abuse,gun violence,scary minorities,drug use}. In the end, the trade off rarely ever has the stated effect and is never worth it.