
The tragedy of the Arabs - mnazim
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21606284-civilisation-used-lead-world-ruinsand-only-locals-can-rebuild-it
======
alrs
You _cannot_ understand the modern Middle East without knowing about Sykes-
Picot, the Balfour Declaration, Ataturk, and Nasser. None are mentioned in
this essay.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasser](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasser)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataturk](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataturk)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_declaration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_declaration)

~~~
waps
And you cannot understand the "tolerant" period in the middle east without
realizing that that period happened with a partially muslim government, but
with the society very much an eastern roman society.

1) Barely any muslims at all. The actual society was near 100% Christian at
the time with small concentrated pockets of Judaism, and a muslim army
concentrated in the capital.

All of the organisations that made the golden age happened, almost without
exception, were Roman organisations that existed before the muslim invasion
and got more freedom to operate. It ended they started getting systematically
killed.

Even so, immediately the dhimma system was introduced. If that's what people
call tolerant, then why not say that Nazis were very tolerant of the Jews ?
It's essentially the same thing.

2) Even so, this muslim government itself was not tolerant, given for example
it's treatment of institutions of learning. Yes they did not just go out and
directly destroyed all of them, but ...

    
    
      In 642 AD, Alexandria was captured by the Muslim army of Amr ibn al `Aas. Several later Arabic sources describe the library's destruction by the order of Caliph Omar.[34][35] Bar-Hebraeus, writing in the 13th century, quotes Omar as saying to Yaḥyā al-Naḥwī: "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them."[36] Later scholars are skeptical of these stories, given the range of time that had passed before they were written down and the political motivations of the various writers.[37][38][39][40][41]
    

(from
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria))

While the library was notorious for political interference, keep in mind that
it recovered from every attack except this one, mostly because the previous
destructions of the library did not involve a massacre (they were not
bloodless either, but there is a large difference). The muslims killed
everyone they could find in a large area around it before burning it.

Muslims, during the golden age, made a habit of killing scientists. Yes there
were a lot of scientists during that period, but to say that the muslim part
of that society tolerated them is stretching the truth beyond recognition.

3) Massacres were very likely a common occurence. While not much history is
known from that period from Egypt), this is from Spain, same government (more
or less), same time period, same "Golden age" :

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_massacre](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_massacre)

This is not an isolated incident in Spain, but a constant during that time
period.

~~~
azth
Good grief! False information and blind hatred much?

~~~
waps
No, it's you who are wrong ! Is this what you call a rational argument ?

------
firstOrder
> While Islamic democracies elsewhere (such as Indonesia) are doing fine, in
> the Arab world the very fabric of the state is weak.

The Western countries and Israel have been doing everything they can for the
past century to keep Arab democracy weak.

In the soi disant "only democracy in the Middle East", the West bank, claimed
by Israel, where ultraorthodox right off the plane from Russia can go to a
West Bank settlement to vote, but in which Palestinians who have been there
for thousands of years can not vote for any government which Israel or the US
recognizes - why not let the Palestinians vote? Israel is no democracy - they
claim the West Bank is Israel, in a defacto sense it is, and they do not let
Arabs vote. We see the contemplation of Islam causing problems, why don't we
look at Judaism in the same manner in how it is against democracy? Meir Kahane
said as much himself, and his policies have been running Israel, and the US
and European backing of Israel for the past years.

Meanwhile the US and UK destroyed Iranian democracy, its parliament,
Mossadegh, and installed a dictator whose CIA-backed secret police arrested,
tortured and killed those who wanted a return to democracy. We had France, the
UK and Israel invade Egypt in 1956, and on and on and on.

The economic and military might of the west and Israel has been fighting
autonomy and democracy in the Middle East for a century, and will continue to
in the next century.

Despite this, as we can see the beginnings of in the Arab Spring, as well as a
history rooted in pan-Arab nationalism, in the years to come Arabs will see
themselves freed from the shackles of imperialism and Zionism, and restore
power in the the Middle East to the people of the Middle East.

~~~
pedalpete
I believe/hope you are getting confused with Palestinians in the West Bank and
Arab Israeli's (who may or may not be of Palestinian descent).
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel)

Palestinians vote(d) for their own leadership. I live in Australia, but I'm
not an Australian, therefore, I am not permitted to vote here. I am unlikely
to ever gain citizenship here, therefore, I will never be able to vote.

~~~
firstOrder
I am confusing nothing. Israel claims the West Bank is part of Israel, and
with IDF troops marching through the West Bank and settlements popping up
everywhere, it is de facto Israel, and according to Israel, de jure Israel.

Can an Arab in the West Bank vote in the Israeli elections? No. Thus, Israel
is not a democracy. The article questioned if Islam was conducive to
democracy. On that basis, we have to question whether Judaism is conducive to
democracy. Meir Kahane did not think it was, and his policies are what are
being carried out on the West Bank.

"Palestinians voted for their own leadership". What does this mean? Can they
vote for MPs in the Israeli Knesset? No. Can they vote for representation in a
country that Israel or the US recognizes? No.

You moved to Australia. Arabs have been living in Jericho for thousands of
years. Yet they are not allowed to vote for any government of a country
recognized by Israel or the US. Yet an ultraorthodox Russian off the plane
from Russia in a new settlement next to Jericho can vote in the Israeli
election. People in the West Bank were invaded in an offensive war in 1967 and
stripped of their rights. You moving to Australia was your choice. They had no
choice.

------
rayiner
> But religious extremism is a conduit for misery, not its fundamental cause
> (see article). While Islamic democracies elsewhere (such as Indonesia—see
> article) are doing fine, in the Arab world the very fabric of the state is
> weak.

First, "fine" is relative. Religious conservatives have been a major force in
turning back progress in countries like Bangladesh. The 1972 constitution
envisioned a secular republic, and the end result was . . . something less
than that. In particular, a series of constitutional amendments eliminated the
commitment to secularism and made Islam the state religion. Over the past few
decades, there was been a substantial regression in areas like womens' rights,
coupled with an increase in public religiousity.

Second, comparing the Arab states to south Asian muslim states is comparing
apples and oranges. To use Bangladesh as an example again, that country has
had organized government for almost all the past 500 years, between the
Mughals, the British Empire, India, Pakistan, and independence. Meanwhile,
Saudi Arabia, while nominally part of several different empires prior to the
20th century, was always on the outskirts of those empires, and was never
really an orderly, centrally-administered place. In Saudi Arabia, central
government has taken a back seat to tribal power for almost that whole
history.

There's lot's of other reasons, obviously. I think a big one is this:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse).
However, I think it can't be taken for granted the degree to which democracy
and good government arises out of the ingrained sensibilities of people.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
How do you figure that Iraq is not part of the Arab world? Iran I understand,
but Iraq?

------
fiatmoney
"No one suggests that the Arabs as a people... suffer from some pathological
antipathy to democracy"

Actually, there is a fair amount of evidence that routine endogamy is a
significant impediment to the development of democracy.

~~~
BugBrother
This was interesting. Do you have a good overview or only papers as
references?

(Not doubting, interested. I have heard quite a few stories from Indian
friends about their (female) relatives running away to marry the wrong
religion, both muslim and hindu. But India is a special case, if anything is.)

Edit: Thanks!

~~~
fiatmoney
For starters:

[http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/04/24/002202211244...](http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/04/24/0022022112443855)

~~~
sampo
They have observed correlation, but I don't think that warrants to interpret
causality.

It could also be that freedom and democracy happen for some other reasons, and
then later in a free and democratic society people will have less incentives
to marry close relatives.

~~~
fiatmoney
It's also important to note that the particular direction of the causality is
not necessary for it to be an impediment.

------
throwaway192382
_Why Arab countries have so miserably failed to create democracy, happiness or
(aside from the windfall of oil) wealth for their 350m people is one of the
great questions of our time. What makes Arab society susceptible to vile
regimes and fanatics bent on destroying them (and their perceived allies in
the West)? No one suggests that the Arabs as a people lack talent or suffer
from some pathological antipathy to democracy._

Is religion the central problem? It seems like the religion has a built-in
mechanism to perpetuate war and misery: "Jihad." The idea is to carry on
fighting at any cost, and to train your children to believe that they too
should fight.

If it weren't for the religion, would the people regularly blow themselves up
in the middle of civilians?

However, this doesn't quite ring true. Long ago, their culture was the best in
the world, and some of the most important scientific advancements were made by
Arab scholars. Were they highly religious back then? If so, why was their
society stable in spite of warfare being a core tenant of the religion? What
changed?

~~~
yxhuvud
There are regions that have atheistic people blowing themselves up. Sri Lanka
is one example of this. Religion is not necessary.

As for your question, Islam was a lot more inclusive before the mongol hordes
sacked Baghdad and brought an end to the Caliphate.

~~~
Crito
Religion is born of culture, and serves in part to preserve it (and prevent it
from changing). A culture that fosters violence will almost certainly develop
a religion that fosters violence. Where there are religions prone to violence,
it is a good bet that there is a culture that is prone to violence. A violent
religion isn't the cause of violence, it's the a symptom of it.

When religions prone to violence are introduced to a culture that is not, the
religion is often modified to be more in line with local customs. The opposite
is also true; excuses for existing local violent or oppressive customs are
found in their new religion.

~~~
mikevm
Do you have any more sources on these claims? (I'm genuinely interested to
read more about this)

~~~
Crito
I'm afraid I don't, that was just me pontificating. Mostly gathered from
observations on how different people with different senses of morality get
wildly different readings from the same religious book, almost invariably a
reading that is convenient for themselves.

I think most people agree that at least most religions are man-made _(all, if
you are an atheist, but I think that most theists would agree that religions
other than their own are man-made)_. If a particular religion is man-made,
then it is made within the context of some particular culture. While it is
_possible_ that the new religion introduced new and novel ideas, more often
than not I think the religions that found acceptance in their host-culture did
not rock the boat too much. Those religions therefore largely reflect the
cultures that they were created in. If a religion advocates stoning gay
people, then chances are the culture in which it was created was also pretty
on board with stoning gay people.

I think that religions are adapted or re-interpreted when they are introduced
to other cultures that already have different values. Lots of things that were
taken literally by the host culture suddenly become metaphorical. Holidays
that were previously cherished by the new culture are wedged into their new
religion under flimsy pretenses. Etc.

~~~
mikevm
Your pontifications were interesting to read nonetheless!

------
dbrower
The Economist rather notably omitted the seeds of the current state sowed in
the Sykes Picot agreement, which made a hash of things just as the old local
power structure was in collapse. Rather than create a stable start for the
region as the beginning of its development, the UK -- probably with The
Economist's supporting conventional wisdom -- made it all the worse.

Sow. Reap. Repeat.

~~~
BugBrother
Cough, the Sykes Picot was from 1916.

It sounds more like the standard way a dictator blame everyone else -- except
their corrupt practices and oppression -- to explain why his country is a POS.

Hell, even the traditional scapegoat is officially used, with reprints of
Zion's protocols and outright anti semitism in officially sanctioned media.

I.e. the same as we had in the west a few decades to centuries ago. (See
kings, dictators, et al.)

Edit: Also, the article do touch the Western influence after the centuries of
Turkish oppression, without using "Sykes Picot": " _In much of the Arab world
the colonial powers continued to control or influence events until the 1960s.
Arab countries have not yet succeeded in fostering the institutional
prerequisites of democracy—the give-and-take of parliamentary discourse,
protection for minorities, the emancipation of women, a free press,
independent courts and universities and trade unions._ "

Edit 2: That was quick down votes. :-)

Edit 3: I never argued that it wasn't a mixed picture -- England was early --
and that some were less primitive than my home country, rayiner.

~~~
watwut
It is hard to get rid of dictator once he has the power.

Edit: Just for the record, I did not downvoted you.

~~~
BugBrother
I don't disagree, of course. All countries started out with dictators and
juntas. (We called them kings in the Western world.) There should be a second
movers advantage. Most of the clan cultures are gone at least, right?

Edit: Hmm... OK watwut -- the dictators have second movers advantage too? It
seems to me that the reason evil juntas get fewer is that without an open
society (which is hard without democracy) a country won't get above a certain
economic level. The "Resource curse" counteract that and won't end in the
Middle East until oil isn't critical.

~~~
watwut
It took violent revolutions and wars to get there. Then again, the government
had to be dysfunctional a lot and weak to get to the revolution. The one with
power has the advantage, there is no second mover advantage.

And do not forget that some of current dictators have and traditionally had
Western support which makes opposition against them even harder.

Edit: the second mover has to wait until the dictator gets weak (for whatever
reason - it may be caused by outside threat) and power vacuum opens up.
Interested parties then fight for power. I would not call any of that
"advantage".

~~~
katbyte
additionally it has never been harder to revolt, military technology is far
more advanced these days.

------
valarauca1
Paradoxically the often cited turning point for the Decline of the Ottoman
Empire is during the Tanzimat period. Which started Constitutional Reform,
Secular Law, Abolition of Guilds, and the decriminalization of homosexuality.

~~~
smacktoward
It's an axiom of political science that heavy-handed regimes don't topple when
their heavy-handedness is at its peak; they topple when that heavy-handedness
is relaxed. The shock of liberalization wakes people up and starts them
wanting more. Classic examples include the French Revolution, which erupted
after the monarchy convened the Estates-General legislative assembly for the
first time in 175 years, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, which began
with the _glasnost_ and _perestroika_ reforms of Mikhail Gorbachev.

~~~
watwut
Isnt it the case that both French and Russians regimes were weak and hugely
dysfunctional at that point and relaxed cause they had no other options
basically?

~~~
smacktoward
The same could be said of the Ottoman Empire at the time of the Tanzimat;
their desire for reform came from suffocating under an incredibly tangled
administrative system and spending hundreds of years losing territory to their
neighbors, not from an abstract desire to run things better.

Authoritarian regimes tend not to liberalize until they absolutely, positively
have no other alternatives.

------
josephby
Correct headline is "The tragedy of the Arabs"; omitting the definite article
makes the lede significantly more offensive :)

~~~
mnazim
Edited the headline. Thanks for pointing out.

------
cicero
The article looks back at the rich Arab intellectual tradition of the Middle
Ages, and the question of what happened is intriguing indeed. I heard a
fascinating interview with Robert R. Reilly, the author of _The Closing of the
Muslim Mind_[1], and I think his book could be a significant contribution to
understanding this problem. Here is what I remember from the interview:

The issue of how God interacts with the created world was an open question in
the Middle Ages. Everyone agreed that God was the creator and sovereign Lord
of the universe, but there were differing views about how that played out.

One school of thought had the concepts of primary and secondary causality. God
is responsible for the existence of all things; he is the primary cause.
However, God gives created things the power of causality so that they are
secondary causes. Therefore a billiard ball has the "power" to cause other
billiard balls to move when it strikes them. These powers of secondary
causality are properties of created things and thus they can be studied and
understood. Such a belief led to early forms of scientific inquiry.

The other school of thought was that God is the direct and only cause of
everything that happens. Secondary causality is just an illusion. God directly
moves all of the billiard balls. Just because billiard ball B starts to move
after ball A comes into contact with it does not mean A was the cause of B's
movement. Rather, God is the cause of all movement. It is the ultimate
"correlation does not imply causation" argument. In fact, the current state of
the universe has no bearing on the state of the universe in the next instance
of time. God recreates the universe every moment in time solely according to
his Will, rather like a video game engine completely renders the screen image
for every frame. The image of one frame does not cause the image of the next
frame. All frames come directly from the game engine.

The second school of thought ended up winning in the Muslim world because it
exalted the Will of God as ultimate and without competition. Philosophical and
scientific inquiry were squelched, but fortunately this happened after the
great works of the first school had already passed into Christian hands. Since
God is primarily Love rather than Will in Christian theology, it was
reasonable to think that God, motivated by love, would give a measure of
control to his creatures.

I hope I have not misrepresented the ideas of the book. It is on my reading
list, but I have not gotten to it yet.

1: [http://www.amazon.com/Closing-Muslim-Mind-Intellectual-
Islam...](http://www.amazon.com/Closing-Muslim-Mind-Intellectual-Islamist-
ebook/dp/B00JBRUKZS/)

~~~
azth
> The second school of thought ended up winning in the Muslim world because it
> exalted the Will of God as ultimate and without competition.

Not really. This is a complex philosophical and religious topic, and it is not
as black and white as was presented in your post. There is no single view that
dominates the Islamic landscape as you mentioned.

~~~
cicero
I'm sure you're right. As I said, I'm referring to my memories of an
interview. That being said, do you think such views of causality have affected
scientific progress in the Muslim world at all?

------
hiphopyo
Interesting article in the Telegraph on how most Muslim countries are actually
the least Muslim countries judging by the values found in the Quran -- whereas
countries like Ireland, Denmark and Luxembourg top the list:

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/108...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/10888707/Ireland-
leads-the-world-in-Islamic-values-as-Muslim-states-lag.html)

~~~
happyscrappy
This is the the type of politically correct, head up your ass foolishness that
has put Europe in the mess that it is in.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
How is pointing out that Europe lives out Muslim values ( _not_ Islam itself)
better than Muslim countries "politically correct"?

What it is, is an incredible indictment of "Muslim" countries. They aren't
producing what their religion says that they're supposed to produce.

------
sampo
[http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/toxicval.htm](http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/toxicval.htm)

~~~
anigbrowl
A great deal of this could be applied to 19th century Western (European and
American) society. Indeed it's not hard to find distinct homegrown pockets of
such social ills today. I don't disagree with the authors views about the
toxicity of some values, but they have to be evaluated in their socioeconomic
ocntext or risk being confused with innate characteristics.

------
platz
While on the subject, Maciej Cegłowski (of Pinboard) posted recently about his
trip to Yemen:

[http://idlewords.com/2014/07/sana_a.htm](http://idlewords.com/2014/07/sana_a.htm)

------
bane
I've been reading through the "A History of Korea" by Michael Seth, hoping to
get some insight into how Korea went from a colonized underdog into a global
economic power in such a short time. The modern history of both Koreas is
truly fascinating as are their early parallels.

One thing I've been surprised to learn is how much of a role various Christian
groups in Korea played in anti-governmnet activities going all the way back to
the Japanese Colonial period. There's some interesting and unique history
there with respect to Korea's history with Christianity -- including being one
of the only countries with a history of self-conversion, before missionaries
ever showed up there.

More recently, the parallels between the economic development of the North and
the South are quite striking. While the North made some very big economic
development strides early on, the long term focus on almost pure heavy
industry and military development caused the country to stagnate and
economically regress -- despite an almost constant stream of aid and support
from first the Soviet Bloc and then China. The infrastructure has begun to
crumble because the state never bothered developing the entire economic
ecosystem needed to keep it running.

The South on the other hand, under the military dictator, Park Chung-hee, took
a more step-wise foundation building approach that's yielded tremendous long-
term success for the country. Seizing power from an incompetently run, but
democratic, government. Park put in place a complex series of programs
designed to build up an export-oriented economy through gradual development of
industry from light-industry to heavy.

It was tremendously corrupt, and built on lots of favor trading. But he used
the power of the military and the government to keep the economy focused on
pure growth, and pragmatically eliminated "non-essential" economic activities.
Starting with things like sugar refineries and textile manufacturing, the
country started working up to construction (a significant number of U.S.
projects during the Vietnam war were built by Korean companies), then
shipbuilding, cars, petrochemicals, etc. Each designed to both provide
economic opportunities for export, as well as provide domestic capabilities
for the next steps.

No political activity was allowed and the country was basically run like a
giant, efficient, no-nonsense, military apparatus for decades. It took until
the 80s before it was really time to switch off from this into the more
liberal and democratic country we see today.

He financed all this with a very pragmatic finance scheme, hitting up Japans
booming economy during the 60s and 70s, despite a great deal of animosity
between the two countries. And then more importantly sold back the finished
goods to Japan and the U.S. markets.

It was under Park that South Korea started doing major construction projects
in the middle-East. The technical ability of South Korean construction
companies can't be underestimated -- the Burj Khalifa was built by Samsung.

Despite significant student demonstrations and unrest during the Park
administration (and the similar Chun Doo-hwan one that closely followed), most
people were simply too busy working and scratching out a living to take to the
streets, or form anti-government organizations.

There's other parallels as well, extremely low participation in the work force
by women, a history of foreign meddling, etc.

I guess what I'm saying is that idle hands may just be the source of a lot of
this misery. In richer Arab countries, most of the work is done by foreigners
on the cheap and locals live off of the proceeds, they're bored and have
nothing else to do. In poorer ones, people need jobs, are desperate and again,
have nothing else to do.

There's been some half-hearted attempts to provide other activities. KAUST,
for example, is a Science and Tech graduate-level university that's had
billions invested into it. But one of the interesting points my book brings up
is that setting up advanced schooling, or advanced industry, doesn't make
sense unless a Park style staged economic program is put in place first to
build all of the necessary social, educational and economic foundations to
support these advanced industries. You can't really leapfrog these things, but
you can make progress unbelievably fast.

The real problem is that, at least for the oil rich parts of the Arab world,
there isn't much incentive to really do these things. If any place might have
a go, someplace oil-poor, like Egypt, might be a logical place to kick off
something like a "Tiger of the Nile" program. I know I'm not the first person
to think of this either.

[http://www.academia.edu/5319334/A_Comparison_of_the_Politica...](http://www.academia.edu/5319334/A_Comparison_of_the_Political_Economy_of_Egypt_and_South_Korea)

[http://www.e-ir.info/2013/12/23/south-korea-egypt-and-
waller...](http://www.e-ir.info/2013/12/23/south-korea-egypt-and-wallersteins-
world-system-analysis/)

[http://www.imd.org/research/challenges/TC057-13-two-
dictator...](http://www.imd.org/research/challenges/TC057-13-two-
dictatorships-lehmann.cfm)

~~~
rayiner
> I guess what I'm saying is that idle hands may just be the source of a lot
> of this misery.

This phenomenon has a name, the resource curse:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse).

Note also, that having a resource-oriented economy tends to vastly overstate
GDP. A dollar of exported crude oil counts as a dollar of "national income"
but it's not income any more than selling off your furniture is income. You're
just converting assets into cash. This phenomenon makes countries that derive
their income from selling resources think they're richer than they really are.

~~~
bane
But I think this is an oversimplification. Not all of the Arab world is
resource cursed. Egypt, as an example, only gets 7% of its GDP from Oil and
Gas. Agriculture accounts for almost 20%. (of course you could possibly argue
that tourism is the resource that Egypt is cursed with)

One of the interesting things I've also read about the development of South
Korea is that U.S. advisors pushed South Korea to develop its agribusiness,
but this was rejected by the Park administration in favor of the export-driven
focus because of the poor and highly variable economic performance of
agriculture.

Basically you can feed people if you grow rice, but you can feed them twice as
much if you sell cars.

I think more important is the early and strong rejection in South Korea of
Communist and Socialist economic ideas in favor of growth oriented chrony-
capitalist ones. Notable is that Korean conglomerates who went along with the
government plan and met their economic targets were given tremendous leeway,
while ones that didn't hit their targets or were against the government goals,
were simply ripped apart and bankrupted.

~~~
tsotha
The problem with the export driven economy is we can't all be net exporters.
At some point your export driven economy will be undermined by neighbors with
cheaper labor.

