As we have seen conflict after conflict erupt across Africa over the past few decades, mention has usually been made of the impact of colonialism and the manner of its withdrawal on the political stability of that continent. While colonialism, and its attendant carving up of countries along arbitrary national borders, is not the sole cause of Africa’s woes, no serious analysis can take place without recognition of that legacy.
One of the many things which has surprised me about media coverage of the current situation in the Middle-East both in the US (where I am at present) and (to a slightly lesser extent) in the UK is that scant awareness has been paid to the fact that much of the Middle East has a similar colonial history to Africa. Films like Lawrence of Arabia portray some of the co-option of Islamic causes in favour of the colonial powers, but facts such as the British creation of the Palestinian flag are usually left untouched.
It has only been lately that the media has begun to pick up on the ethnic and religious mix in Iraq for anything other than identifying that Saddam Hussein was a mamber of a minority group within Iraq and cruelly oppressed the Shia majority. While this is undoubtedly true, the make-up of Iraq is considerably more complex than such a crude analysis allows for, with the Kurdish population in the north being a key factor, along with a diverse range of other groups.
In the last of a series of articles on democracy in the Middle East, Guardian commentator Brian Whitaker talks about of how 35 years ago the relationship between Catholic countries and democracy could often be talked about in the same language as we today use of many Muslim ones. In the subsequent decades many of those countries have moved towards a series of government which looks very reminiscent of our own, though they still remain considerably more volatile as recent uprisings and demonstrations in Latin America have demonstrated.
Whitaker’s analysis leads towards a sense that much of the Western focus on the Middle-East is not only often hypocritical, but is also forcing the hand of history. A history already disrupted by the colonial intervention of previous centuries. His article provides anecdotes which suggest that parliamentary democracy is a serious hope for some of the countries of that region, but stops short from describing what that democracy might look like.
Any political theory and ideology must, to prosper, allow itself to be reformed in light of experience and evidence. Just as people today often scoff at ‘unreconstructed’ communism, we must be aware that there is a possibility that the same will be said in future years of those who cling to earlier understandings of democracy. The touch of ideology must be light, and the grip of democracy flexible if it is to adapt to cultures significantly different from those which we in the West have so far seen it modelled within. When Western leaders call for ‘freedom’ in other countries, that freedom must extend to allowing them to shape their own systems in light of their own history.