The Changing Face of the Middle East

The world has changed: Egypt is no longer under Mubarak's power, and protests have erupted in Libya and Bahrain, both of which have effectively kicked out/intimidated reporters, though some footage is still being sneaked out by brave local residents.

Many people are afraid of some Muslim extremist takeover. Of course, there is a possibility that Muslim extremis groups could take over, for a variety of reasons: 1. Those groups were the only viable opposition for a long time, meaning both that they are popular, and that they are better-organized than other groups. In other words, they are good at politics and are facing opponents who do not have as much experience playing the game. 2. They may take over through violence or revolution.

In the second scenario, the most likely outcome is an anti-Western state of imposed religious law, like Iran perhaps. In the first scenario, it is possible that there will be a state in which the state religion is Islam, religious practices are encouraged by law, and religious education is state-funded, but there is still a sort of freedom of religions for non-Muslims, and the question will be to what extent. Veiling may or may not be optional. It may be the non-Muslims will have complete religious freedom. Perhaps laws will simply maintain that one adhere to their religion - thus, Coptic law for Coptic, Muslim law for Muslims, etc. It is also possible, however, that even if democratically elected, an Islamist party will impose authoritarian rule. Fareed Zakaria, in his book "The Future of Freedom", explains how often democratically elected governments may impose illiberal regimes. Indeed, in unstable countries, it is very likely that democratically elected governments will do so, in part, because people's need for security may lead them to vote for regimes they know will be authoritarian. Hamas is a prime example of a democratically elected government that is anti-Western, funds religious education institutions that preach hatred, started a war with a Western ally, and severely curtails religious freedom, both by opressing non-Muslims and by not providing protection for Muslims who may wish to break religious rules. Zakaria beleives in a gradual process of liberlization and infrastructure building which must lay the groundwork for democracy before it can take effect. Libya and Bahrain, and to a lesser extent, Egypt, have not gone laid that groundwork.

Revolution by and for the people is a beautiful thing, but it has its dangers. One need only look at the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror in order to figure that out. If a stable government is not imposed soon after the old one is deposed, revolutions get swept up in their own excesses, until a new regime arises to impose security through violence. Thus, the revolution in Egypt will only be as succesful as the new military transitional government and the future elected government.

As for Libya and Bahrain, it is to soon to tell what will happen, since their leaders still sit on their waning thrones, ignoring the lessons of Louis: If he had accepted the National Assembly, he may not have ended with his head in a guillotine. Instead, he remained stubborn, and with each refusal to accept the will of the people, he only succeeded in further angering them. Then again, Louis did not have the military force of Libya and Bahrain, and guns may work miracles for silencing people, especially when you then deny them medical treatment, as Bahrain has done.

Thus, the immediate picture in the Middle East looks extremely unstable. The long-term picture however, if democracy can succeed, is one of much more stability than preceded the revolutions, one of liberal values, peace, and economic health. Such an environment would be less conducive to recruitment by terrorist groups, and thus enhance world peace and security.

It can even be hoped that the people of Gaza will finally rise up against Hamas, who has opressed its people terribly since taking office.

In the meanwhile, it is in the interest of the US to make sure democracy succeeds - the stakes are too high to let it fail, both because of the ensuing instability and spread of extremism if it fails, and because of the lessening of the terror threat and the blow to extremist Islam if it succeeds. Thus, the US should be allocating funds to help Egypt build economic infrastructure, perhpas even giving micro-lends to Egyptians who want to start small businesses, and be teaching political parties how to organize. It should do the same for Libya and Bahrain, should the moment come. This investment in the health of Egyptian democracy should be seen as an investment in American security - and that is priceless.