Alkadry states how colonialism prevented the establishment of democracy in the ME. Colonialism in short deterred democracy:
1)through the destruction of existing socio-political institutions of the colonized;
2. through the creation of artificial states that served
colonial goals and devastated the
cultural and socio-political institutions
that existed before colonialism;
3. through installing institutions that were loyal to the
British and that steered away from nationalism; and
4. through direct oppression of national movements or any movements that threatened
colonial economic and political interests.
This fours points are the bulk of the argument, it sums up the impact of the West on the ME and how this effect is still precluding the latter to democratized. This influence is still there although the colonials are no logner physically in the region. The West formed alliance with what Alkadry calls puppet leaders who who were put in place to facilitate the exploitation of the West. The same concept works for the African countries where the blame really goes to the West and not the inherent nature of the culture. In addition, globalization also played a role in preventing the democratization of the region because economic stability became the priority and not democracy. Alkadry argues that stability is maintained at the expense of democracy. Another current influence of the West if their policy that serves the purpose of security (Israel's security) and the interests in oil.
Alkadry's argument is what a reader wants to read to understand the picture of the dynamics between the ME and the West from an insider perspective. It explicitly shows how the West has a major role for the slowing the democratization in the region. ME is still colonized by the West through their continuity in the destruction of the real values of the region. This continuity is through the alliance with puppet leaders and bogos policy that pretends to serve the interest of the ME but only serves the West's interest.
Similar to Alkadry, Mamdani's approach about good and bad Muslim, is another example for how the West is internally implicated for what is happening now, yet externally it pretends to help to remove what is happening. Relying on true fact Mamdani illustrates how Al-Qaida is an outcome of the USA policy, yet the USA does not hold responsible for this. Instead, they want to fight it. Mamdani argues that the US will never feel responsible. Jihad was born out of a deeply modern construction, that was serving the US where as now al Jihad in the enemy of the US. He suggests that in order to solve the divide between the West and Eats, US has to recognize this responsibility and tackles issues in which the whole region is concerned about such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The West's perception of Islam has created distinction between good and bad Muslims through what he calls cultural talks ( or in Said's word Orientalism).
Both Alkadry and Mamdani stand for a point of view that illustrate the indirectly direct implications of the West in the East in what the former dislikes about the latter. Globalization has definitely a role to play in the slow democratization and facilitating the cohesion of Jihad groups (Fandy's argument and example of Saudi Arabia). Therefore, if we define globalization as a West's product, which in many aspects is, will globalization be another West's involvement in what is happening such as Jihad and failure to democratize in the East? Is globalization to blame for the divide between the East and the West?
S.A.A
No comments:
Post a Comment