Atatürk or Khomeini

Faced with increasing global connectivity and the impossibility of isolation, today’s Middle Eastern countries are faced with a momentous task: redefining themselves in this modern age. However, in order to redefine one’s self, one must first have a clear definition of self which is the first half of the problem. The second half is the classic question: Atatürk or Khomeini?

Since the fall of the Ottoman empire in 1918, the former imperial master of most Arab countries, there has been a long struggle to find an identity. While most of the current international borders of the Middle East were formerly internal borders within the empire, there is still no real tradition of nationality as Westerners think of it. Before the “Great Earthquake,” which shattered the Middle East into its current fragments, no one walked around calling himself a Syrian, Iraqi or Jordanian in the sense of the word today. Like many eastern cultures, the Middle East’s basic social unit is not the individual, but the family or clan. Other factors such as religious brand (Allawi, Sunni, Shia, Druze, Christian, etc) carry much more weight than they would in Europe or the US. A Syrian and an Iraqi felt much closer than say an American and a European. An individual’s loyalty wasn’t as direct as ours. It was rather a more complex web of immediate family, extended family and friends therefore making them unprepared for their new nationalities.

There have been various experiments over the years such as Pan-Arabism, which aimed to unite the peoples of the Middle East in a secular and socialist way. Some of us may recall a failed experiment otherwise officially known as the “United Arab Republic” whereby Syria and Egypt merged into a single pan-Arab state. In addition, the two formed a loose confederation with the then North Yemen creating the “United Arab States.” Hugely successful, the UAR lasted from 1958 to 1961.

Of additional interest to fellow vexillologists out there, Syria’s flag was never changed back from the UAR flag where the two stars in the center represent Syria and Egypt. And for those of you suddenly recalling the Iraqi flag, you’re correct! There is a connection. Iraq’s three star flag expressed the hope that the UAR would be extended. The text, God is Great, was added during the Gulf War.

Faced with increasing contact with the West and the resulting friction, leaders are faced with unmistakable urgency of reform. Looking back, we see two extreme solutions: Atatürk’s secular democracy in Turkey and Khomeini’s authoritarian theocracy in Iran. On one hand, Iran’s extreme and confrontational stance inspires respect among the disillusioned, however, it has fared no better than other countries. Turkey, while able to tout the considerable progress it’s made, is accused of abandoning its true identity by forming a secular republic. Unlike Europe and the US who both have traditions of enlightenment and democracy to look back on, the Arab world has known only the caliphs, sultans, British crown and US/UK puppet governments. At the moment, the strongest and most emotional ties the region has in common are bad experiences with the US. This is not what we want a new Arab identity to be built on.

While a true democratic government is unequivocally better than a monarchy or theocracy, the gap between reform and its benefits is usually a large one, not to mention, convincing wealthy monarchs to give up power isn’t a task the sane tend to take to. The gap will be an uneasy one with many a temptation by the West to intervene and many doubters in the countries themselves.

I feel that international pressure at points of acupuncture-like accuracy combined with enough carrots and domestic pressure should be enough to slowly (and at a country-specific pace) shift gear into a constitutional monarchy which worked for England, Spain, Holland etc. Countries like Tunisia and Jordan are already moving in this general direction. Granted, at the moment, certain dictatorships are better than certain democracies, the good dictatorships are still a bridge (even when long) to democracy.

In the absence of competent governance, increasing prosperity and more international respect, people may continue to choose, or at least sympathize with, the Islamist answer. As soon as the people have something to take pride in and feel like they too pull a little weight on the world stage, the need for it dissipate. But when you have failing states/cultures bombarded with images of the successful west, expect them to be frustrated and look to vent that frustration in the form of revenge. Current Arab reform is just as a much a search for a coherent identity as it is for government and this needs to be taken into account when promoting reform.