Western Democratization in the Middle East

When Lisa Anderson examined the key issues with Western interpretations of democracy in the Middle East, it stemmed from a fundamentally flawed definition of what democracy should be. From misunderstanding Islam, the cultures, and the people, political scientists made grave mistakes in attempting to identify the root problems of why Western democracy would not begin in the Middle East. While outsider powers were looking in trying to mold a group of newly formed states into their perfect democracies, the states themselves had established forms of government which were not eager to reform to Western standards.

Western democracies failed to understand that even they lack some sort of universal similarity. The perfect democracy that political scientists discussed did not exist, so immediately the attempts to turn Middle Eastern countries into a Western democracy were bound to fail. When US Secretary of State Colin Powell believed the United States, “could fundamentally reshape the Middle East in a powerful, positive way,” it demonstrates the attitude which Western powers had when they approached the Middle East. The seeming pessimism about any regime in the Middle East and how it automatically seems to be categorized as an authoritarian and oppressive leads political scientists down a road which leads nowhere towards answers, but rather towards self-praising essays about how great Western democracy is. This is where the discipline of area studies becomes necessary to understanding the region fully.

Rather than just examining the structures of the government and how that regime stays in power, political scientists need to understand what the people and culture of regions are like to truly understand what keeps a regime intact. For example, the presence of the Muslim religion in the Middle East is more complex than any political scientist understood. Rather than being directly opposed to democracy, it is just as conducive to a liberal democracy as any other monotheistic religion. Often, discussions of possible democracies in the Middle East were immediately dismissed because of the shallow understanding of Islam.

In our course, we can avoid these simple mistakes by immersing ourselves in the culture of the Middle East and trying to understand the lives of both the leaders at the top of the regime, as well as the people that they are ruling. In addition, we must remove the inner biases of democracy and examine what the effects of imperialism were on the region. Strong leaders often thrive in situations where strong leaders traditionally rule. This does not just apply in the Middle East; Mayor Richard J. Daley in Chicago was a tremendously powerful and authoritative figure. However, many of the recently immigrated residents in Chicago found nothing strange about this because they were previously living in states that had the same personalities in charge.

Following the Arab Spring uprisings, Anderson’s criticism of political scientists and their view of Middle Eastern democracy seems to ring true. While clearly not all the revolts resulted in the instituting of democracy, some have had success and that is not due to them following the traditional western path. While parts of her essay certainly did not predict what would happen, she was ahead of the curve.