National Post | April 4, 2003
In the Western world, knowledge of history is poor -- and the awareness
of history is frequently poorer. For example, people often argue today
as if the kind of political order that prevails in Iraq is part of
the
immemorial Arab and Islamic tradition. This is totally untrue. The
kind
of regime represented by Saddam Hussein has no roots in either the
Arab
or Islamic past. Rather, it is an ideological importation from Europe
--
the only one that worked and succeeded (at least in the sense of being
able to survive).
In 1940, the French government accepted defeat and signed a separate
peace with the Third Reich. The French colonies in Syria and Lebanon
remained under Vichy control, and were therefore open to the Nazis
to do
what they wished. They became major bases for Nazi propaganda and
activity in the Middle East. The Nazis extended their operations from
Syria and Lebanon, with some success, to Iraq and other places. That
was
the time when the Baath Party was founded, as a kind of clone of the
Nazi and Fascist parties, using very similar methods and adapting a
very
similar ideology, and operating in the same way -- as part of an
apparatus of surveillance that exists under a one-party state, where
a
party is not a party in the Western democratic sense, but part of the
apparatus of a government. That was the origin of the Baath Party.
When the Third Reich collapsed, and after an interval was replaced
by
the Soviet Union as the patron of all anti-Western forces, the
adjustment from the Nazi model to the Communist model was not very
difficult and was carried throughout without problems. That is where
the
present Iraqi type of government comes from. As I said before, it has
no
roots in the authentic Arabic or Islamic past. It is, instead, part
of
the most successful and most harmful process of Westernization to have
occurred in the Middle East.
When Westernization failed in the Middle East, this failure was followed
by a redefinition and return to older, more deep-rooted perceptions
of
self and other. I mean, of course, religion.
Religion had several advantages. It was more familiar. It was more
readily intelligible. It could be understood immediately by Muslims.
Nationalist and socialist slogans, by contrast, needed explanation.
Religion was less impeded. What I mean is that even the most ruthless
of
dictatorships cannot totally suppress religiously defined opposition.
In
the mosques, people can meet and speak. In most fascist-style states,
openly meeting and speaking are rigidly controlled and repressed. This
is not possible in dealing with Islam. Islamic opposition movements
can
use a language familiar to all, and, through mosques, can tap into
a
network of communication and organization.
This gave to religious arguments a very powerful advantage. In fact,
dictatorships were even helping them by eliminating competing
oppositions. They had another great advantage in competing with
democratic movements. Such movements must allow freedom of expression,
even to those who are opposed to them. Those who are opposed to them
are
under no such obligation. Indeed, their very doctrines require them
to
suppress what they see as impious and immoral ideas -- an unfair
advantage in this political competition.
These religious movements have another advantage. They can invoke the
very traditional definition of "self" and "enemy" that exists in the
Islamic world. It is very old. We see it, for example, in
historiography. We can talk of European history as a struggle against,
for example, the Moors, or the Tartars. If you look at contemporary
historiography for the Middle East's Muslim peoples, their struggle
is
always defined in religious terms. For their historians, their side
is
Islam, their ruler is the lord of Islam, and the enemy is defined as
infidels. That earlier classification has come back again. Osama bin
Laden's habit of defining his enemies as "crusaders" illustrates this.
By "crusaders," bin Laden does not mean Americans or Zionists.
"Crusaders," of course, were Christian warriors in a holy war for
Christendom, fighting to recover the holy places of Christendom, which
had been lost to Muslim conquerors in the 7th century. Bin Laden sees
it
as a struggle between two rival religions.
I say again: To blame the Saddam Hussein-type governments on Islamic
and
Arabic traditions is totally false. Those traditions led to the
development of societies that, while not democratic in the sense of
having elected bodies, produced limited governments. That is,
governments limited by the holy law, limited in a practical sense by
the
existence of powerful groups in society, like the rural gentry and
the
military and religious establishments. These acted as constraints on
the
power of the government. The idea of absolute rule is totally alien
to
Islamic practice until, sad to say, modernization made it possible.
What the process of modernization did was to strengthen the sovereign
power, and place at the disposal of the sovereign power the whole modern
apparatus of control and repression. Modernization also weakened the
intermediate powers, which previously limited the powers of the state
and had acted as a countervailing force. Modernization meant a shift
from old elites living on their estates, to new elites who regarded
the
state as their estate.
Modernization has not erased the fact that the peoples of the Muslim
Middle East have a tradition of limited, responsible government. While
not democratic, this tradition shares many features of democratic
Western governments. It provides, I believe, a good basis for the
development of democratic institutions -- as has happened elsewhere
in
the world. I remain cautiously optimistic for their future.
Bernard Lewis is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern
Studies, Emeritus, at Princeton University. He has written numerous
books about Islam, including, most recently, The Crisis Of Islam: Holy
War And Unholy Terror (March 2003). This essay is adapted from the
8th
Annual Barbara Frum Lecture delivered by Prof. Lewis in Toronto which
will be broadcast on CBC Radio's IDEAS on April 24.
Russian version