Well it seems like the middle east is once again on the front page of every website and newspaper. Evidently the populations of Tunisia and Egypt have decided they want new leadership to replace their current autocratic governments. They are asking for their governments to allow the regular folks a larger role in deciding how the country should be run. This participation could come in the form of democratic voting or just elevating an existing leader by popular acclaim. I think they both have a realistic shot at changing their governments for the better as long as certain groups do not get involved. I'm mainly talking about the Islamist groups. So far they have kept a low profile in both countries but how long will that last? Both countries could expect a lot of international support if the Islamist's stay out of it. Most civilized countries hold nothing but disdain for the existing Islamic governments and a good chunk of the world equates "Islamic" with "Terrorist". Now not every person who supports Islamist ways of governing is a terrorist but the association is there. Another significant hurdle they will have to cross is determining which political model will replace the existing government. This is where all of the different groups will start maneuvering themselves to stake their claim and push their agenda. This process could last a couple of months or a couple of years but until this issue is settled don't expect things to change for the better just because the current leadership has been shown the door.
Iran is a good example on how things can go from bad to worse after the revolution has been won. In 1979 the Iranian citizens rebelled against the Shah and forced him out of the country. It was originally student driven revolution that wanted to create a more open and liberal society. Just like college kids everywhere they were idealist. However, as things came to a head there were other groups that joined the revolution. These different groups represented every political flavor from Marxist to Islamist with a whole bunch of others in the middle. None of these groups commanded a clear majority when the revolution began. This is where it all fell apart. The student leaders who were fronting the revolution thought it was more important to invade the US embassy and take hostages then trying to push their ideals forward and seal the deal. It was at this point that the Islamic groups used this distraction and the time it provided to bolster their majority and finally take total control of the country. In my opinion the Iranians had removed one bad government and replaced it with something even worse. Under the theocracy Iran went from a fairly liberal and west facing country to a harsh Islamist state ruled by strict Sharia laws and the rest is history.
The countries rebelling today could end up following Iran's example if they do not act responsibly and quickly to replace the government they are removing.
Another example of how "revolutions" can make things go from bad to worse can be found in France circa 1930's. Their political parties at the time were so divided and confrontational that they were not even able to mount any real defense of their country when the Germans came calling. The leftists, conservatives, Marxists, communists, and fascists were all responsible for turning France into a German protectorate practically overnight. At some point even the most contentious political bickering needs to give way to the pragmatic solutions and actions needed to maintain a countries ability to support their citizens. Once a solid framework is established the fine art of politicking and associated chaos can resume.
No comments:
Post a Comment