4 ms·

> Arab democracies are unstable because they will elect Islamists. why does that imply instability?

by oa335 5mo ago

slibhb 5mo ago
Fundamentalists tend not to be pragmatists.
- oa335 5mo ago
  i don't think you know much about islamist parties and are just grasping for reasons to justify suppressing democracy in certain places. ennahada (tunisia), pks (indonesia), jui (pakistan) are all examples of islamist parties that have compromised or reached across the aisle at various points just off the top of my head. besides, isn't the point of democracy to allow people to be led by those who represent their principles? if they are in power, why should the majority expect their elected leaders to compromise those principles?
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > ennahada (tunisia), pks (indonesia), jui (pakistan) are all examples of islamist parties that have compromised or reached across the aisle at various points Would love to read more on this. Naïvely, I shared OP’s view of Islamist parties’ intransigence. (Note to third parties: Islamist != Islamic majority or even Islamic parties, and certainly separate from Arab parties.) > isn't the point of democracy to allow people to be led by those who represent their principles? Yes. But nothing says democracies are fundamentally stable. It absolutely follows that intolerant populations can systematically elect intolerant leaders who then cause instability.
    - oa335 5mo ago
      > Would love to read more on this. Brookings Institute has a series of papers about Islamist movements around the world: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rethinking-political-islam/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rethinking-political-isla... which includes both analyses from Western academics as well as responses from members of Islamist parties. > It absolutely follows that intolerant populations can systematically elect intolerant leaders who then cause instability. Intolerant of what, and what do you mean by "instability"? If the ideology of the political parties and institutions reflects that of the (vast) majority of the population, why would we expect "instability"? Democracy can descend into demagoguery; I believe that occurs when the "people" feel like the state has been captured by an elite (oligarchy) that doesn't represent their interests (i.e. interests of the majority), "intolerant" or not - e.g. Gracchi brothers, Hugo Chavez, etc etc.
  - slibhb 5mo ago
    I was writing about Arab Islamism. I don't have strong views about Pakistan or Indonesia, though I have negative opinions about Islamism across the board. One reason I'm skeptical of Arab democracy is that Arab nationalism is weak. In the Arab world, Islam and hatred of Israel seem like the most powerful forces. Much stronger than nationalism. Would countries governed by those forces be stable? Would their policies be desirable from the perspective of the rest of the world? There are Arab democracies that may prove that Islamists can be pragmatic. Tunisia like you said, Iraq, and possibly the new Syrian government. We'll see. The world is always changing.
troad 5mo ago
Because every Islamic theocracy to date has been profoundly destabilising for its neighbours and the world, and always ends up imprisoning and immiserating its own people. No one wants more Irans or Afghanistans. (Or Saudi Arabias, though that's not said out loud as often.)
- oa335 5mo ago
  but neither Saudi Arabia nor Afghanistan's leaders were voted in ... and secular/socialist/monarchic dictatorships have arguably worse effects on their neighbors and citizens - e.g. Saddam, Assad, Nasser, MBZ in UAE, MBS
  - troad 5mo ago
    Yes, there are a lot of bad options in the Middle East; Islamic theocracy has no monopoly on awfulness. I think the broader point is that a democracy is unstable when the electorate just votes for their favourite warlord / cleric, who promptly ends / rigs any further elections. In the Middle East, there appears to be a pattern of electorates voting for / staging a revolution in favour of Islamists, which either leads to a terrible Islamist regime, or leads to an elite coup, which of course destroys the democracy in the process. Worst case scenario all of this happens at once in different places, and you get a terrible civil war. Democracy is great, but it requires an electorate that actually wants to sustain and retain a democracy. Those appear to be few and far in between.
    - oa335 5mo ago
      > In the Middle East, there appears to be a pattern of electorates voting for / staging a revolution in favour of Islamists, which either leads to a terrible Islamist regime, or leads to an elite coup, which of course destroys the democracy in the process. that pattern is hardly unique to middle east/islamists though. look at central/south america. guatemala, chile, brazil etc all had democracies overthrown by "elite" coups. like almost every instance in the middle east, there is actually a common denominator between these coups... resistance to the US-led order magically seems to invite instability.

> Arab democracies are unstable because they will elect Islamists. why does that imply instability?

by oa335 5mo ago

> Arab democracies are unstable because they will elect Islamists. why does that imply instability?

slibhb 5mo ago

Fundamentalists tend not to be pragmatists.

oa335 5mo ago
i don't think you know much about islamist parties and are just grasping for reasons to justify suppressing democracy in certain places. ennahada (tunisia), pks (indonesia), jui (pakistan) are all examples of islamist parties that have compromised or reached across the aisle at various points just off the top of my head. besides, isn't the point of democracy to allow people to be led by those who represent their principles? if they are in power, why should the majority expect their elected leaders to compromise those principles?
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > ennahada (tunisia), pks (indonesia), jui (pakistan) are all examples of islamist parties that have compromised or reached across the aisle at various points Would love to read more on this. Naïvely, I shared OP’s view of Islamist parties’ intransigence. (Note to third parties: Islamist != Islamic majority or even Islamic parties, and certainly separate from Arab parties.) > isn't the point of democracy to allow people to be led by those who represent their principles? Yes. But nothing says democracies are fundamentally stable. It absolutely follows that intolerant populations can systematically elect intolerant leaders who then cause instability.
  - oa335 5mo ago
    > Would love to read more on this. Brookings Institute has a series of papers about Islamist movements around the world: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rethinking-political-islam/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rethinking-political-isla... which includes both analyses from Western academics as well as responses from members of Islamist parties. > It absolutely follows that intolerant populations can systematically elect intolerant leaders who then cause instability. Intolerant of what, and what do you mean by "instability"? If the ideology of the political parties and institutions reflects that of the (vast) majority of the population, why would we expect "instability"? Democracy can descend into demagoguery; I believe that occurs when the "people" feel like the state has been captured by an elite (oligarchy) that doesn't represent their interests (i.e. interests of the majority), "intolerant" or not - e.g. Gracchi brothers, Hugo Chavez, etc etc.
- slibhb 5mo ago
  I was writing about Arab Islamism. I don't have strong views about Pakistan or Indonesia, though I have negative opinions about Islamism across the board. One reason I'm skeptical of Arab democracy is that Arab nationalism is weak. In the Arab world, Islam and hatred of Israel seem like the most powerful forces. Much stronger than nationalism. Would countries governed by those forces be stable? Would their policies be desirable from the perspective of the rest of the world? There are Arab democracies that may prove that Islamists can be pragmatic. Tunisia like you said, Iraq, and possibly the new Syrian government. We'll see. The world is always changing.

troad 5mo ago

Because every Islamic theocracy to date has been profoundly destabilising for its neighbours and the world, and always ends up imprisoning and immiserating its own people. No one wants more Irans or Afghanistans. (Or Saudi Arabias, though that's not said out loud as often.)

oa335 5mo ago
but neither Saudi Arabia nor Afghanistan's leaders were voted in ... and secular/socialist/monarchic dictatorships have arguably worse effects on their neighbors and citizens - e.g. Saddam, Assad, Nasser, MBZ in UAE, MBS
- troad 5mo ago
  Yes, there are a lot of bad options in the Middle East; Islamic theocracy has no monopoly on awfulness. I think the broader point is that a democracy is unstable when the electorate just votes for their favourite warlord / cleric, who promptly ends / rigs any further elections. In the Middle East, there appears to be a pattern of electorates voting for / staging a revolution in favour of Islamists, which either leads to a terrible Islamist regime, or leads to an elite coup, which of course destroys the democracy in the process. Worst case scenario all of this happens at once in different places, and you get a terrible civil war. Democracy is great, but it requires an electorate that actually wants to sustain and retain a democracy. Those appear to be few and far in between.
  - oa335 5mo ago
    > In the Middle East, there appears to be a pattern of electorates voting for / staging a revolution in favour of Islamists, which either leads to a terrible Islamist regime, or leads to an elite coup, which of course destroys the democracy in the process. that pattern is hardly unique to middle east/islamists though. look at central/south america. guatemala, chile, brazil etc all had democracies overthrown by "elite" coups. like almost every instance in the middle east, there is actually a common denominator between these coups... resistance to the US-led order magically seems to invite instability.