Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm a graduate student studying the Middle East/North Africa (MENA) region. Right now we are studying Egypt. It's obvious the professor hates al-Sisi, the military ruler of Egypt.
Judging from the readings, we're all supposed to boo and hiss about how 'bad' Sisi is and how the Muslim Brotherhood wasn't really all that bad and how they were democratic and Morsi was unlawfully overthrown.
However, it seems to me that for whatever reason you like, the Middle East in general and Egypt in particular isn't ready for democracy. Morsi created a huge mess and his Muslim Brotherhood, despite rattling on about democracy and spiritual harmony and creaminess ad nauseam couldn't really run the country. The Ikhwan/Brotherhood gets a lot of crap in the MENA not because they are seen as terrorists, but because their ideas are just pie in the sky (think Bob Marley lyrics about I&I and universal harmony etc).
Everyone in the class, except me, seems to agree with the professor. They are good little brainwashed Americans who know in their little boy and girl hearts that people can't be happy without democracy. However, I disagree.
Firstly, look at this country. "Democracy" just means we can pick who can screw us over. In reality, whoever gets elected your life will still be the same even though sometimes the weak minded let themselves be tricked into placing their hope in the hands of a politician.
Secondly, look at Egypt or the MENA in general. People there are barely hanging on. What's better, some democracy-salesman coming into power and turning the country into a mess, or a strong ruler who can create order and stability and hopefully attract foreign investment and turn the country around? What is the use of "democracy" when people don't have enough to eat? But no, we're Americans, so we're supposed to hate Sisi, despite the fact that he's the only one with a plan for Egypt. But, muh, democracy.
What about a Singapore model for the MENA? No democracy, just economic success and high levels of social capital.
I'm a graduate student studying the Middle East/North Africa (MENA) region. Right now we are studying Egypt. It's obvious the professor hates al-Sisi, the military ruler of Egypt.
Judging from the readings, we're all supposed to boo and hiss about how 'bad' Sisi is and how the Muslim Brotherhood wasn't really all that bad and how they were democratic and Morsi was unlawfully overthrown.
However, it seems to me that for whatever reason you like, the Middle East in general and Egypt in particular isn't ready for democracy. Morsi created a huge mess and his Muslim Brotherhood, despite rattling on about democracy and spiritual harmony and creaminess ad nauseam couldn't really run the country. The Ikhwan/Brotherhood gets a lot of crap in the MENA not because they are seen as terrorists, but because their ideas are just pie in the sky (think Bob Marley lyrics about I&I and universal harmony etc).
Everyone in the class, except me, seems to agree with the professor. They are good little brainwashed Americans who know in their little boy and girl hearts that people can't be happy without democracy. However, I disagree.
Firstly, look at this country. "Democracy" just means we can pick who can screw us over. In reality, whoever gets elected your life will still be the same even though sometimes the weak minded let themselves be tricked into placing their hope in the hands of a politician.
Secondly, look at Egypt or the MENA in general. People there are barely hanging on. What's better, some democracy-salesman coming into power and turning the country into a mess, or a strong ruler who can create order and stability and hopefully attract foreign investment and turn the country around? What is the use of "democracy" when people don't have enough to eat? But no, we're Americans, so we're supposed to hate Sisi, despite the fact that he's the only one with a plan for Egypt. But, muh, democracy.
What about a Singapore model for the MENA? No democracy, just economic success and high levels of social capital.
I'm an American and I don't give a rat's patootie about Sisi, I just believe a young country like the US is never going to be the driving force to solve centuries old issues. I believe we should leave the ME and let the countries of the region learn to live together or suffer the consequences, we have more than enough issues of our own to contend with.
I'm a graduate student studying the Middle East/North Africa (MENA) region. Right now we are studying Egypt. It's obvious the professor hates al-Sisi, the military ruler of Egypt.
What about a Singapore model for the MENA? No democracy, just economic success and high levels of social capital.
Uh......a tiny port city which has needed to be there for 100's of years to facilitate trade differs from ANY model that some vast land masses can follow.
If that even needs to be said, I question the level of this "debate".
You might as well say "how about a Silicon Valley Model" or "How about a Hollywood Model" or - even - how about a Disney World model.
Sorry, but these "one persons take" opinion on this and that aren't really relevant.
I'm a graduate student studying the Middle East/North Africa (MENA) region. Right now we are studying Egypt. It's obvious the professor hates al-Sisi, the military ruler of Egypt.
Judging from the readings, we're all supposed to boo and hiss about how 'bad' Sisi is and how the Muslim Brotherhood wasn't really all that bad and how they were democratic and Morsi was unlawfully overthrown.
However, it seems to me that for whatever reason you like, the Middle East in general and Egypt in particular isn't ready for democracy. Morsi created a huge mess and his Muslim Brotherhood, despite rattling on about democracy and spiritual harmony and creaminess ad nauseam couldn't really run the country. The Ikhwan/Brotherhood gets a lot of crap in the MENA not because they are seen as terrorists, but because their ideas are just pie in the sky (think Bob Marley lyrics about I&I and universal harmony etc).
Everyone in the class, except me, seems to agree with the professor. They are good little brainwashed Americans who know in their little boy and girl hearts that people can't be happy without democracy. However, I disagree.
Firstly, look at this country. "Democracy" just means we can pick who can screw us over. In reality, whoever gets elected your life will still be the same even though sometimes the weak minded let themselves be tricked into placing their hope in the hands of a politician.
Secondly, look at Egypt or the MENA in general. People there are barely hanging on. What's better, some democracy-salesman coming into power and turning the country into a mess, or a strong ruler who can create order and stability and hopefully attract foreign investment and turn the country around? What is the use of "democracy" when people don't have enough to eat? But no, we're Americans, so we're supposed to hate Sisi, despite the fact that he's the only one with a plan for Egypt. But, muh, democracy.
What about a Singapore model for the MENA? No democracy, just economic success and high levels of social capital.
As a graduate student it appears you have not learned the most important of lessons.
There is the Conqueror and then there is the conquered.
America is the best example of a Conquering nation.
Look back to all other great Kings and Rulers as to how they treated their spoils of war.
What makes America great is that everybody now has a chance to eat or be eaten.
Only the strong will survive. Do you have what it takes to come here? Are you up to the challenge?
It is truly far harder to stay here than it is to leave here!
I'm a graduate student studying the Middle East/North Africa (MENA) region. Right now we are studying Egypt. It's obvious the professor hates al-Sisi, the military ruler of Egypt.
Judging from the readings, we're all supposed to boo and hiss about how 'bad' Sisi is and how the Muslim Brotherhood wasn't really all that bad and how they were democratic and Morsi was unlawfully overthrown.
However, it seems to me that for whatever reason you like, the Middle East in general and Egypt in particular isn't ready for democracy. Morsi created a huge mess and his Muslim Brotherhood, despite rattling on about democracy and spiritual harmony and creaminess ad nauseam couldn't really run the country. The Ikhwan/Brotherhood gets a lot of crap in the MENA not because they are seen as terrorists, but because their ideas are just pie in the sky (think Bob Marley lyrics about I&I and universal harmony etc).
Everyone in the class, except me, seems to agree with the professor. They are good little brainwashed Americans who know in their little boy and girl hearts that people can't be happy without democracy. However, I disagree.
Firstly, look at this country. "Democracy" just means we can pick who can screw us over. In reality, whoever gets elected your life will still be the same even though sometimes the weak minded let themselves be tricked into placing their hope in the hands of a politician.
Secondly, look at Egypt or the MENA in general. People there are barely hanging on. What's better, some democracy-salesman coming into power and turning the country into a mess, or a strong ruler who can create order and stability and hopefully attract foreign investment and turn the country around? What is the use of "democracy" when people don't have enough to eat? But no, we're Americans, so we're supposed to hate Sisi, despite the fact that he's the only one with a plan for Egypt. But, muh, democracy.
What about a Singapore model for the MENA? No democracy, just economic success and high levels of social capital.
You are right. See what happen to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq in the name of getting democracy. Muslim majority nations and African nations are God fearing countries, so the Western concepts of freedom, liberty etc may not work.
Uh......a tiny port city which has needed to be there for 100's of years to facilitate trade differs from ANY model that some vast land masses can follow.
If that even needs to be said, I question the level of this "debate".
You might as well say "how about a Silicon Valley Model" or "How about a Hollywood Model" or - even - how about a Disney World model.
Sorry, but these "one persons take" opinion on this and that aren't really relevant.
Exactly. Totally different model. Even the Singaporeans would hesitate to recommend that for other countries.
Not Egypt, but certainly Tunisia, Libya, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iran is not a tribal society, but it does have nations and tribes on the periphery.
The Kurdish nation, Baluch nation, then tribal groups in Arab Khuzestan, and Turkic and Mongol-Turkic tribes in Bactria, plus tribal groups in the region south of the Iranian Plateau between Arab Khuzestan and Baluchistan.
Historically, tribes merge into supra-tribes usually through politically arranged marriages, then the supra-tribe coalesces into a nation, or perhaps a nation-State, geography permitting.
The problem with dictatorial rule in tribal societies is their run as unitary States, so that always results in a civil war, if not a civil war of revolution, where the goal is to replace the government, then a civil war of independence, where the goal is to split from the whole freaking program.
Tribal societies necessitate confederations or federations.
Confederations are hugely successful for tribal groups and you can look to Native American confederations, or confederations of Turkic and Mongol-Turkic tribes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badmajon
What about a Singapore model for the MENA? No democracy, just economic success and high levels of social capital.
That requires extraordinary leadership, which is conspicuously absent, and it requires divesting from a single-cash-crop economy, which also requires extraordinary leadership.
The problem with MENA has always been their over-reliance on petroleum, which is subject to market shocks. When prices are beneficial, the governments have continuously failed to diversify the economy.
That's what Iran is doing now.
The dual-reactors at Bushwehr will have one used to power desalinization plants, which will allow the Iranian Plateau to be irrigated.
In the past, well, at the end of the last Ice Age, the Iranian Plateau was a lush tropical paradise that was laid waste due to climate change to become the barren arid area it is now, but irrigation will solve that problem and create lots of jobs for Iranians, plus boost their economy.
You are right. See what happen to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq in the name of getting democracy. Muslim majority nations and African nations are God fearing countries, so the Western concepts of freedom, liberty etc may not work.
Well, the closest model in the Middle East to Singapore is probably Dubai, because it's essentially a trades and services entrepot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
