Thread: Arab Spring Brings the Decline of Secularism in Tunisia

The so-called 'Arab Spring' is perhaps only 'Spring' if you're an Islamist.
It's been a Nuclear Winter for Secularists and Christians from Egypt (Copts) to Iraq. .
In Egypt we've seen The Brotherhood and Salafists get near 70% of the vote.

A Report on the new Ayatollah-like wacko who heads Tunisia's leading party.

Arab Spring Brings the Decline of Secularism in Tunisia
and Arab Spring Brings the Decline of Secularism in Tunisia « Persecution News

Arab Spring Brings the Decline of Secularism in Tunisia
Throughout the Middle East, long-standing dictators just ousted in the Arab Spring are being replaced by more oppressive forms of governance, even in the Arab world’s most liberal country, Tunisia
By Aidan Clay
2/23/12

TUNIS (ANS) -- Widely seen as the most secular country that recently deposed long-standing leaders, many believed that Tunisia had the greatest opportunity to elect a moderate government concerned with democratic principles and human rights. However, the hopes of secularists, Christians, and other minorities were crippled in October when the Islamist Ennahda party won 41% of the votes for a national constitutional assembly, a one-year body charged with writing a constitution. Along with other Islamist movements, Ennahda – at the time called the Movement of the Islamic Tendency – had been outlawed under former President Zine El Abedine Ben Ali.... Ennahda’s founder and chairman is Rashid Ghannouchi. He considers himself a pupil of Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini, defended the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, and supported Saddam Hussein’s invasion and annexation of Kuwait in 1990. In a speech given in Khartoum just before the Gulf War erupted, Ghannouchi said, “We must wage unceasing war against the Americans until they leave the land of Islam, or we will burn and destroy all their interests across the entire Islamic world” ....

Martin Kramer, the renowned Middle East scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, labeled Ghannouchi “the most prominent Islamist in the West” during his 22-year exile in the U.K. At an Islamic Conference on Palestine attended by leaders of Lebanon’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in 1990, Ghannouchi said, “The greatest danger to civilization, religion and world peace is the United States Administration. It is the Great Satan.” The international community has ignored this extremist rhetoric and extolled Tunisia’s revolutionary motives for ‘greater freedoms.’ However, Ennahda is beginning to show its true colors by attacking freedom of speech and tacitly disregarding violent Islamist movements calling for an Islamic state.

Death of Free Speech

Nabil Karoui, the owner of Tunisian channel Nessma TV, is currently on trial for blasphemy after airing the French-Iranian animated film Persepolis which features a cartoon depiction of God and is considered sacrilege to some Muslims. Nearly 140 lawyers filed lawsuits against Karoui for “violating sacred values” and “disturbing public order,” Tunisia Live reported. Following the release of the film in Tunisia, a Salifist-led mob damaged Karoui’s house with Molotov cocktails on October 14. If convicted, Karoui could face three to five years in prison. His trial has been adjourned until April 19, 2012.
[......]

I would say that Turkey provides an excellent template for understanding the difference between liberalism and populism. While obviously not an Arab country, Turkey was nevertheless liberalized DESPITE being Islamic, and this only due to the dedicated efforts of Kemel Attaturk. Its civil liberties have long been safeguarded by the military rather than the mosques, and these liberties are becoming increasingly eroded due to populist Islamist movements.

The same template applies to the Arab world, though, where the choice is between a regressive populism and a strong armed leader who may or may not support more civil liberties. What most dunderhead useful idiots in the west fail to understand is that this populism is archly conservative in nature. Unlike the already liberalized west where populist movements are generally geared towards greater freedoms, the populist movements in the illiberal Arab world reflect their traditional values. It is no surprise whatsoever that the Islamists have swept in to fill the power vacuum. They were the best organized, and are popular with the ignorant populations. This little exercise in "democracy" will last only so long as the Islamists can consolidate full control, however, as the organizations, themselves, are totalitarian in nature.

I don't think instant secularism is as important as beginning democracy. Let's give it a generation or two and hope the voting polls stay open.

Originally Posted by Gardener

I would say that Turkey provides an excellent template for understanding the difference between liberalism and populism. While obviously not an Arab country, Turkey was nevertheless liberalized DESPITE being Islamic, and this only due to the dedicated efforts of Kemel Attaturk. Its civil liberties have long been safeguarded by the military rather than the mosques, and these liberties are becoming increasingly eroded due to populist Islamist movements.

The same template applies to the Arab world, though, where the choice is between a regressive populism and a strong armed leader who may or may not support more civil liberties. What most dunderhead useful idiots in the west fail to understand is that this populism is archly conservative in nature. Unlike the already liberalized west where populist movements are generally geared towards greater freedoms, the populist movements in the illiberal Arab world reflect their traditional values. It is no surprise whatsoever that the Islamists have swept in to fill the power vacuum. They were the best organized, and are popular with the ignorant populations. This little exercise in "democracy" will last only so long as the Islamists can consolidate full control, however, as the organizations, themselves, are totalitarian in nature.

I think it was You who pointed out in a string in another section that democracy without liberality was a futile pursuit. Perhaps more than a year ago. ("Zero Tolerance for Homosexuality" string?)

Good points re Turkey/Attaturk as well. Only through his 'extreme secularism' was Turkey lifted from backwardness/religion into modernity and success.
But, speaking of "Templates" for the Arab World, Turkey is creeping back somewhat into Islamism via [Mullah] Erdogan and his AKP.
This is very disturbing to those of us who hold Turkey out as the world's best hope/model for an Islamic country.
There is an unmistakable Islamic Revivalist trend in the Middle East.

Originally Posted by ecofarm

I don't think instant secularism is as important as beginning democracy. Let's give it a generation or two and hope the voting polls stay open.

Hoping the polls stay open is the crux of the issue, since the Islamists have little respect for human made law (to varying degrees, but while differences exist between Sharia states and how much control they have over the indivual, none approach the western understanding of democracy). A protection against that is a constitution enforced by people who believe in it. That said, it would be preferable to start with Islamists weakened in their position of drafting a constitution and getting stronger than them being in a strong position to frame a constitution and getting weaker, by the standards of where democracy has previously worked. This is a bad situation to start in.

Originally Posted by mbig

The so-called 'Arab Spring' is perhaps only 'Spring' if you're an Islamist.
It's been a Nuclear Winter for Secularists and Christians from Egypt (Copts) to Iraq. .
In Egypt we've seen The Brotherhood and Salafists get near 70% of the vote.

A Report on the new Ayatollah-like wacko who heads Tunisia's leading party.

Arab Spring Brings the Decline of Secularism in Tunisia
and Arab Spring Brings the Decline of Secularism in Tunisia « Persecution News

Arab Spring Brings the Decline of Secularism in Tunisia
Throughout the Middle East, long-standing dictators just ousted in the Arab Spring are being replaced by more oppressive forms of governance, even in the Arab world’s most liberal country, Tunisia
By Aidan Clay
2/23/12

Mbig,
You've brought up some clear points here which I agree with. I think that the Arab Spring - while good in nature as it was primarily the uprising of ordinary citizens who have become fed up with the way in which they've been oppressed and denied fundamental civil liberties under tyrannical regimes - was also fundamentally flawed. Let's take Egypt for example, while the revolution was largely successful in that it rid the country of a worthless dictator, a lack of organisation and political parties led to a power vacuum which was easily exploited by Islamic fundamentalist parties which are the only parties organised enough to take advantage of the situation; as most of the people protesting were regular frustrated citizens, not organised bodies of opposition.

Herein lies the flaw of the Arab spring, quick revolutionary policies have quickly lead to a power vacuum easily exploited by radical movements which are organised enough to take advantage of the situation. The same has been evident as you clearly point out in Tunisia as well as in Yemen, where a lack of stability and the emergence of a vacuum has been exploited by Al-Qaeda who have now made considerable progress in militant operations in the south. Even the Libyan uprising has paved the way for other human rights concerns and the exposure to more radical groups as a result of the nation's volatility. For example, the pure negligence of international law and human rights in the treatment and death of Gaddafi (regardless of how evil he was as an individual) shows just how unprepared and unorganised the rebels were for the situation.

It is my firm belief that for democracy to succeed, to truly succeed in bringing civil liberties and freedom to its citizens, it must meet certain preconditions. Revolutionary methods are likely to lead to the existence of power vacuums and their exploitation by individuals and groups who could eventually serve merely as replacements for the dictatorship. I think that, rather than merely a political system of one person one vote, democracy represents a gradual transition is society towards policies of liberty and freedom, and a shift in leadership. I don't think that 'holding elections' will immediately guarantee the freedom of citizens by any means. For this reason, I think that gradual reform in order to meet these preconditions followed by adequate procedure in a transition of power is more likely to lead to a successful formation of a democracy in which the population can flourish, and not just the majority, but minorities as well.

The approach taken by several Arab leaders (the Jordanian and Moroccans for example) in the step of immediate reform, is more likely to result in a successful transition towards a constitutional or parliamentary monarchy in which democracy thrives. Whether these promises are delivered I don't know, but I believe they have the best chance.

Thanks for taking the time to read,
Justice

Very good points JFS.

As Americans, we have naturally rooted for these democratic movements, though many of us with trepidation after a short-lived exuberance.
Some posts from the original string on this:
See http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1059262765 (Riots erupt in Egypt as protesters demand end to Mubarak regime)
and my summarizing: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1059262765 (Riots erupt in Egypt as protesters demand end to Mubarak regime) where one of the secular leaders, Qandil, realizes it will take a while for the less organized to get thre feet planed. Though we all have been shocked at the 70% the Hood/Salafist ran up. So planting enything except hope seems way off.

and agreeing, if not preceding, with some of your points. (14 months ago)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1059264848 (Riots erupt in Egypt as protesters demand end to Mubarak regime)

Originally Posted by me

as I said previously in reiteration of Gardener's point, liberalism has to precede Liberal (or secular) Democracy.
'Islamist Deomocracy' is a more tricky concept, perhaps an oxymoron.
Some of the Arab Peninsula is ruled by Kings/Sheiks/Emirs, who are prosperous and happy.

Transition for some places like the UAE would be much easier.. if they wanted it.
Qatar is not close to democracy, yet this is the home of (mostly) Free and open al-jazeera.
Hated by most Arab Tyrants.
Is official democracy as pressing if you've got prosperity and can voice your opinion?

Always interesting to read back for some perspective.

Another concerned I voiced in that string was that if these peoples are expecting anything more than elections from these movements (and they are), they are mistaken. The problems are insurmountable for many. No government is going to find jobs for Egypt's vast hoard who live in poverty ie, the slums of Cairo.
Tunisia was catalyzed by a one-man 'Bread' protest.
These countries are Overpopulated relative to their resources and development.
Initial riots weren't just by enlightened freedom fighters and their ipods, but the simple hungry.
This is surely Verbotten, but most of the Arab World needs a 'One-Child' policy, ala China, or vast emmigration... out.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle...in-kramer.html (Demography & Radicalism; Martin Kramer)

In Tunisia, I am most concerned.
It doesn't, well 'didn't', get much more secular in the Arab world.
'We' just can't lose Tunisia even if more important Egypt has surprised even the most pessimistic of us with the results of elections there. There was always a Brotherhood under the surface but the Salafists also dramatically outperformed expectation.
Now it seems open democracy has arrived too soon for even Tunisia.
So as we have both now noted, the reform model may be easier through non-revolutionary means.

Originally Posted by mbig

These countries are Overpopulated relative to their resources and development.
Initial riots weren't just by enlightened freedom fighters and their ipods, but the simple hungry.
This is surely Verbotten, but most of the Arab World needs a 'One-Child' policy, ala China, or vast emmigration... out.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle...in-kramer.html (Demography & Radicalism; Martin Kramer)

In Tunisia, I am most concerned.
It doesn't, well 'didn't', get much more secular in the Arab world.
'We' just can't lose Tunisia even if more important Egypt has surprised even the most pessimistic of us with the results of elections there. There was always a Brotherhood under the surface but the Salafists also dramatically outperformed expectation.
Now it seems open democracy has arrived too soon for even Tunisia.
So as we have both now noted, the reform model may be easier through non-revolutionary means.

Mbig, I agree with most of the points you've made here. A couple comments I would add though, are that I don't think overpopulation is the root of the problem in the middle east. Other nations which do have explicit population policies are thriving economically. China has a sixth of the world's population but only 7% of its land and 5% of its fossil fuels; yet its economy is developing more rapidly than any other in the world. Of course, there are still so many issues to be overcome within China, and those come with development and time; but I think globalisation allows for a resource-population imbalance to be overcome; so this isn't our only issue.

I think that corruption is one vital aspect of the problem, as it really hinders the region's economy. As well as this, the people do want political freedom, they want civil liberties and fundamental human rights; and these can come through gradual transition to democracy, these issues can be resolved politically. The world's resources are more than enough for the population, we just aren't great at distributing them; and I think the same applies in the middle east where the resources are enough but the exploitation and corruption of many is a major obstacle. I'm not denying population is a problem, because it may be one, but I think other nations suffer larger population problems than the middle east; and ours are more fundamental than that - they're issues of freedom and liberty and progress. Also, I'm not sure how successful a policy similar to China's would be; culture and tradition lead to large families within the Middle East, and I fear that some inherent sexism (in the older generations moreso than ours) which exists in SOME (by no means most) aspects of society could lead to an issue similar to the one China experienced with regards to abandonment etc.

Great post though, Thanks for the response

Originally Posted by Ben K.

Hoping the polls stay open is the crux of the issue, since the Islamists have little respect for human made law (to varying degrees, but while differences exist between Sharia states and how much control they have over the indivual, none approach the western understanding of democracy). A protection against that is a constitution enforced by people who believe in it.

It all depends on who wields the most power, and judging from what's happened in the region over the past couple of decades, and past couple of years, specifically, I really have my doubts that the secularists can hold onto any power at all. Democracy isn't really very compatible with Islam, and since Islam tends to dominate the entire lives of it's adherrents, I expect the general population will give in to fears of offending Allah over all else. It really isn't a culture and/or religion where there is much room for compromise or separation of church and state.