PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS ISRAEL, TURKEY, EGYPT OR PAKISTAN. THEY'RE ALREADY DEMOCRACIES AND PAKISTAN IS NOT IN THE MIDDLE EAST. THANK YOU.


I'm going to go with Iran. Last winter we saw those huge demostrations in their cities, revealing a huge popular movement that could very well seize power from the mullahs and bring democracy to the country for the first time ever. I would be inclined to say Afganistan or Iraq, but Afganistan is a mess (not to mention the widespread practice of purdah, the rejection of outsiders and their ideals) and the Islamic movement in Iraq has too much power for democracy to take hold.

Also, I don't think that you can give a people a democracy, much less force it on them. People have to take democracy, and in a country without a popular movement beyond that of Islamic fundimentalism, like Iraq or Afganistan, that's not going to happen. I think that in Iran, the people are willing, ready and possibily even able to take democracy. However, if they ended up with a real populist government, I doubt that our government would be willing to accept that, and once again the Washington Bullets would fly.

Kuwait

Kuwait is not as gung-ho when it comes to Islamic law and plus they have an oppurtunity to grow into a successful Democratic Capitalist country with it's vast resouces of oil. Since we have liberated them from Iraq's grasp in the 1st Gulf War and protected them from Saddam's daily missile fires at Kuwait with PATRIOT missile batteries during the 2nd Gulf War, they have welcomed Westerners, especially Americans, to Kuwait with open arms.

Iran has the potential too but it has a long way to go because of the religious hardliners that would try to undermine democracy in Iran.

Kuwait? I sort of threw that in there as a joke. In Kuwait, you can't become a citizen unless you can trace your heritage back to this certain ethnic group, and I don't see that changing any time soon. I don't see much of a popular movement there, either. Also, they're a monarchy.

EDIT: Also, only 10% of Kuwait's population are citizens, and there was only one missile attack on Kuwait during the second Gulf War. I think two missile got shot down and 3 hit nothing, seeing as a SCUD couldn't hit anything smaller than Texas with any accuracy.

CIA World Factbook entry on Kuwait

lol Then why even put it in as a choice. If it was a joke it should be in casual conversation.

Do you have anything constructive to add?

Rattlesnake, your "joke" currently has 5 votes and is in the lead for your poll.

Yeah, I find that rather strange. I'd really like to see the rationale as to why a country where only a select few are even allowed to be citizens is going to become a democracy. Goamerica said they were open to Westerns, but that's a far cry from being democratic, though you wouldn't know it from the additude here in the US. Saudi Arabia is considered a "moderate" Arab state because they cooperate with us even though they're just as brutal a dictatorship as any other in the area.

Could one of those five please speak up?

Was not ancient Athens considered a democracy?

Well, I could go very deep into that, but I'd rather not in this particular thread, seeing as it's about the Middle East, not Athens. Simply selecting a few people that are allowed to vote because of their race is not a democracy. If everyone except pure, white Germans were not allowed to vote in America, would you still call America in democracy? Oh yeah, and you'd also have to add a king who would appoint the President. Is that a democracy?

I don't think any of these countries are on their way. But if Palestine gets created it will be done with a democratic system put in place. They also will have a lot of citizens who lived under a democracy (even if as an occupied people)

However, I do not believe democracy can thrive without full industrialization and the creation of a thriving or large middle class.

Not it.

Despite my relative ignorance to the politics of the region, I chose Iran. In my observations, they are the only country that has actually acted on any desire to institute democracy. I think the student and journalist protests and Khatami's repeated message to stop ignoring youths are important steps to realizing the freedoms that comprise a democracy.

I also think it is important to remember that the old 'hard-liners' will die off. The youth will grow up, and if it all works out well, they may actually have a democracy in a few generations. It's my impression the Iranians who desire democracy are realistic about this time line and I hope the 'good intentions' of outsiders don't interfere with their progress.

Like Eeyore (I presume), I also opted for Palestine. I suspect that dictatorial royalist regimes and/or theocracies are too ingrained elsewhere at the moment for a successful western-style democracy to emerge. And a people who have suffered under what they must surely view as an oppressive fascist regime for half a century, with no government of their own in that time, may be eager for a semblance of representation.

Iran is probably the second most likely choice - if the US can keep from meddling in their affairs yet again. They've already got rid of the puppet monarchy we installed and seem to be getting a bit tired of the fundamentalist theocracy we enabled afterwards.

A scud missile was made to carry a payload of either nuke, bio, or chem type warhead, i do think it has a radius of 27 miles where it will land, at least that’s what i have heard, its a Russian weapon and i think that was part of its design strategy for some reason.

I voted iran, even with its mass of religion in government, i do think a nice secular society is growing there, with the youth mainly, i don’t think its going to happen in my lifetime, and less now with the war in Iraq, but as far as reaching something like a democracy on their own terms i do think Iran is the closest after Iraq, the Iraq before u.s invasion. People in Iran actually go skiing there

I think Kuwait is the LEAST likely to ever have democracy, as it is a inherited monarchy really, and not likely to change without violent overthrow, and since they are supported so thouroughly by the US, it won't happen. I think Iran will be the first real Islamic Republic, and I have some Iranian friends that agree completely. It seems that about only 40% of the current population there still support the Mullahs, and they are of the generation that knew the Shah. The real hatred of the US comes from our support of the shah there, not our occupation of the "holy land" of the Saudis, who are themselves seen as very corrupt, and I don't think anybody here will argue as to the complete corruption of the saudis LOL

To study how a republic or democracy wil occur in an Islamic state is to study why they are Islamic states. It is the corruption of the secular goverments they served under that caused them to turn to religious leaders, and those religious leaders in turn turned corrupt as well. This of course happened in Christian history as well, but there was a time the Islamic kingdoms structure was far more condusive to business and prosperity than the European kingdoms, now the Christian world has adapted and the Muslims have not, and I see the cycle of change more advanced in Iran IMO than any other area.

Of course, it could be argued that the PLO is already the best republic/democracy in the region, but since they don't have a homeland, they aren't a country are they? Funny, if the US was really about freedom, we would have been supporting the PLO the whole time LOL

My money is on Qatar. They have taken solid steps in the last few years toward a democracy.

I would also go with Kuwait.

Simply because it is currently a monarchy does not rule it out. The British are STILL a monarchy (technically) but also have a representative government. No reason the Kuwaitis could not follow the British model.

Also, Kuwait is one of the only ME countries to allow freedom of religion.
Religious Freedom in a Muslim Culture To me, this indicates a tolerance for minorities, which is essential for any democratic government to work.

Kuwait is extremely discriminatory against thier majority- ethnic Kuwaities are the minority in the extreme, so any "democratic" goverment will appear just like the South Africa "democracy" under aparthied- there will be a large majority of non-kuwaities that are second class citizens, so therefore, it will be doomed to failure unless they give equal rights to all kuwaties by birth instead of birthright.

Qatar I had almost forgot about- they do stand a very good chance of getting it right as well.

Well, there's no reason technically that they couldn't, but it almsot certainly won't happen. The king has a lot more power in Kuwait than in England, and there isn't the drive to decrease his power that there was in England back in the 1500's and 1600's. And, as Cruising Ram pointed out, most people can't even become citizens in Kuwait.

I picked other, simply because I don't see any of them becoming democracies, nor should they be forced to. I don't understand why everyone acts like every country on the planet needs to be forced to be a US-style democracy, these countries have existed centuries longer than the US in most cases and have done very well as they are.

Stop trying to convert the world!

I think there is a reason. Such as preserving their culture

Cephus:

Converting the world would make it a better place

I concur with this assesment especially because over in Kuwait they consider George HW Bush to be one of their founding fathers, his pictures graces their tabacco bars on top of political establishments and he is remembered as a hero that saved them from Saddam Hussein.

I would also like to comment on the title of this thread. If we will not reckognize the Jews right to Israeli land and we will not call Israel the land of Joshua or Abraham or Moses, then why would refer to the rest of the Middle East as the land of Mohammed. Such a linking between the two ordains a birth rite to land through religion and it is something that Moslem radicals say to each other to refer to the Middle East. I only point this out because of all the stiff-kneed talk in the Foreign Policy section, that questions Israeli's right to land.

GoAmerica: One-liners are generally not constructive debate, especially off-topic one-liners. What does that have to do with whether they'll become a sucessful democracy or not?

JL: Deal with it. You're free to call the Middle East whatever you want.

Rattlesnake,
I know you just got done repromanding GoAmerica for one-liners....and this is better because?????

How about WE ALL stop with the one liners and get back to constructive debate regarding this topic:

I don't believe any of these nations, nor any other nation IN THE WORLD, will ever have anything better than a representative democracy.
Prime Minister Mori, was not elected by the people.
George W. Bush, was not elected by the people.
Rather, these two were 'elected' by the capitalistic money-is-god plague which is rapidly siezing the world.
Is this democracy?
No.
How, then, could the same system be democracy in the Middle East?

I would say Iran. The Iranian people as a whole are fed up with oppressive theocracy and would welcome democratic reforms. Just recently there was widspread protests against the regime, even in the face of brutal opposition by the basijis. In my opinion the days in which the Mullahs rule Iran are limited.

Kuwait IMO is the least likely. If the monarchy was overthrown it would only be replaced by a Wahabist regime and a Taliban-style implementation of the Sharia. The Kuwaiti people, like the Saudis, are increasingly embracing Wahabism, a more fundamentalist, militant sect of Sunni Islam. In recent elections there, the majority of the seats in their national assembly went to Wahabist candidates.

Right. And the treatment of the protesters didn't help either. It just made it worse. I think that theocracy, back in the 70's, was popular, but is dying now.



The reason they gained seats was because, like the Pro-Taliban people in Pakistan, used Anti-American platforms. They reached out to those Kuwaitis that are opposed to the U.S.

I would have to also go with either Palestine, because of the semi-democratic nature of the PLO and the involvement of the West in the creation of a Palestinian Free State, or Iran, because of the vocal and ongoing level of protest there. If I had to call one or the other I'd say Palestine, on the proviso that it is ever actually brought into existence as a credible and free political entity.



Now who sounds like an extremist? How does such an attitude differ from the view of an Islamic fundamentalist that the world will be a better place if converted to Islam? I believe that the democratic process is essential to personal and societal freedom. Surely, therefore, any attempt to enforce democracy makes a mockery of that freedom, and is very likely to fail in any case.

Societies change through both internal and external pressure and agency. Such change, however, is gradual, and cannot be accelerated or even ignored just to suit either the geo-political objectives or pseudo-absolute morality of the West. If the nations of the Middle East are to become democratic, they must be allowed to do so within their own frames of change and with the full but non-intrusive support of the West.

I voted Syria. The country is led by the Baas party, but its structure is corrently the closest to what we call democracy. All other countries (except Lebanon and Israel maybe) are kingdoms, emirates or are at war.

Bashar Al Hassad needs to bring reforms to his people to grant them freedom of course.