Renegades!

Moderating Elected Radicalism

A question hangs over news reports from the middle east, typically posed by anonymous 'critics' and repeated ad nauseum in the columns of North American papers:

'Does the US and the West as a whole really want democracy in countries that might elect Islamists?'

This 'hypothetical' question insinuates that radical Islamists will carry out their agenda once they gain the reigns of power. Often, it is cited in the case of Saudi Arabia, a politically repressed and violent kingdom. A kingdom, it is often noted, that is rich in princes and oil, but low on opportunity, political freedom, and equality. The kingdom is also the exception to one 'rule' of terrorism: "Terrorism is a product of poverty". Northern Ireland, Saudi Arabia, and Spain were and are fairly wealthy in one form or another, and the terrorists from these regions have all been relatively well off individuals. If this law were in fact true, sub-Saharan africa would be the hotbed of international terrorism, and Tanzanians would be under considerably more scrutiny at the airport.

What political scientists are slowly coming around to see, is that terrorism is not simply a matter of economic conditions, but a matter of 'political freedom'. Typically, a political leader in a politically free society will be able to talk openly about ideas or movements that they have come to believe in. If a leader has proposed these ideas, they have probably been tested on a focus group of the leaders' constituents or party, and have garnered some support on their merits. This same leader might put these ideas to the general population to see if they will fly. After a hearing, columnists, writers, community leaders and politicians will debate the issue or idea. Whether the criticism is politically motivated or not, the idea will receive a hearing in Parliament and the court of public opinion will issue a ruling. Perhaps the issue or idea will be put down, discarded, modified or taken into consideration. The issue of 'tax cuts' in the late 1990's is a prime example. In a push from western provinces and from some quarters in Ontario, the Alliance (with support from the National Post) made a real push for tax cuts for a tax weary public. The public, in general, was behind the idea and the Liberals subsequently implemented many of the cuts in their pre-election goody bag.

While the idea was not able to win an 'election' for the Alliance, mainly because the Liberals actually implemented the tax cuts, the Alliance felt that the fact that because they had successfully argued for the cuts, they had served their constituents. They took pride in the fact that their ideas had been included in a public debate and had shown to have merit.

In countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran, these debates are not possible. Instead of discussing 'tax cuts', however, there is a push amongst many quarters for radical change to a more conservative state, but these are thwarted amibitions. So, instead of having a public debate, the public is told time after time, that the status quo is the only option. The unopposed ideas of opposition forces are not debated, and so ideas take on a mythical status: Utopia can be achieved if only the government was toppled or a caliphate imposed. If we were in power, we would change everything, and a more perfect state would exist. Without a discussion or public hearing, imams and militants have a free pass on debating the merits of their ideas.

So what would a democratic election in Saudi Arabia look like? A shock to Militant Islam. Instead of finding their ideas are intellectually superior, they might find that reason and logic deem their political persuasion inferior. Liberal moderates might not win, but they would offer change and possibly convince Islamist leaders that what they believe might need moderation. This is typical of any discussion of ideas: two sides honestly exchange views, and attempt to persuade the other side of their merits. If both sides are being honest, they might admit that they are closer to their opponent's position after such a debate.

Supposing that Islamists do gain power, like they have in Turkey: are they going to stick to their radical agenda? Iran, for its part, has given up on reform for now, having lost faith in the power of their democratic reformers. Their country, despite evidence suggesting opposition, is on a massive suicide bombing mission of Israel. Its leaders have stated every few months or so, that a nuclear attack on Israel resulting in the total anihilation of Iran would be worth the cost because Iran is statistically such a small proportion of the overall world muslim population. Would such actions be possible under a democratic regime? Well, unless the entire electorate is willing to go on a massive suicide mission, the answer is no. Of course, even in Palestine, the home of such barbarians, the Palestinian territories would not want to kill themselves whole hog to see Israel go under. Most of the diehard suicide bombers themselves pull out of such missions because of basic human decency and a will to live.

The moderating force in democracy is not an internal mechanism that keeps leaders 'honest', or 'doing the right thing'. Democracy moderates the actions of leaders because they realize that a majority of the population must feel they are being served by their government. If not, the government will not be sticking around very long. Saudi Arabia, it is thought, would be a disaster if a democratic Islamist group were to take over the helm because they would 'cut the oil supplies off'. Is the west to believe that the Islamists would not be politicians? How would they get slush funds to coax the representatives from Jeddah into a coalition to keep burkas in the classroom? How would they fund the construction of glorious fountains in the presidents' riding in Mecca?

The truth in Turkey, will be the truth in other nations: the outrageous amibitions of the leaders will be tempered by the need to bring home the bacon to the people. Democratic nations demand competency, results and improved living conditions for the electorate. They re-elect leaders on these criteria.

Other than the electorate, and free debate that moderate parties, there is one massive force that democratic nations face: other democracies. Voters are free to live in other nations, with the best and brightest being the most mobile. If they feel that other nations are doing a better job, they will move. It is a competition amongst the free that keeps a nation on the straight and narrow. Under a free Saudi Arabia, its people might feel that their neighbour Iraq is doing a better job with their health care system (okay, we're talking way down the line here) or that the are keeping income tax to a minimum, etc. This competition increases pressure on nations to provide opportunity for their citizens.

Similarly, in this competition and in the name of self interest, other nations place enourmous pressure on other democracies to cooperate. Turkey has come under pressure to conform to certain economic, social and international laws with the promise of becoming a full EU member. Recently, controversial conservative muslim legislators had their own laws undermined by EU nations, stating that their new laws would delay entry into the EU. Islamists, of course, might hate Christianity, the EU, the west and the freedoms in those nations. But they would hate even more to be kicked out of office.

Ultimately, the open dialogue and political freedom coupled with the interests of the people, other nations and the invisible hand of the market all play a part in keeping radical agendas sidelined in an honest and democratic political system. There is nothing to fear from a democratic muslim state, but much to fear from a country of one official voice, where smouldering hatred and unopposed ideas of revolution fester.

posted by Shamrocks! @ 5:46 PM