Religion & Liberal Democracy

 

After nearly two hundred years since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18Th century, when Europe adopted the secular approach after shifting from a Monarchy system to a Liberal democracy, another revolution has erupted in the early years of the 21th century in the Middle East removing their totalitarian regimes.  


These revolutions are seen to be setting future standards for the Middle Eastern Political system the same way the French revolution did for the western political system.

The reality that was presented after these revolutions, is that Modern Technology and Globalization hadn’t excluded people from their faith, nor did it change any of their religious views and traditions in these regions. On the contrary, it had brought back what they have been deprived of (Freedom of Religion) by the totalitarian regimes. 


Moreover, the temporary loss of the political stability, caused by theses revolutions, pushed the people of diverse ethnicity towards adherence to religion and faith putting secularism out of the equation.

Recently, some philosophers, politicians and professors are researching and processing a new doctrine of brining both faiths and democracy together. By doing so, they will develop a modern formula of coexistence between future governments and the people. Such formula consists of an idea of faith and/or religion friendly democracy, and democracy friendly faith.

The newly “freed” countries in the Middle East adopted a religious political approach,which posed  challenges to the liberal and “secular” democracy. 


Such challenges raised the call among decision makers for reforms or alternatives to the democratic structure in order to keep up with modern social and political transformations.

A different Approach to Democracy

Religious Democracy, is an alternative to a traditional pluralistic secular democratic political system, that is based on the principle of a purely constitutive legislation. Religious Democracy, combines together legislation with religions (while sharing its morals, principles and mostly the teachings of these religions  under a pluralistic umbrella) creating a newly formed order.

Combining religion and democracy will contain most faiths either of the majority or the minority of any diverse society, making way for religious views to enter the field of political pluralism.

Bringing religion into the political game is so crucial, though some think it’s inevitable. Because globalization is pushing the world together through various ways (such as the internet, Media, migration and other forms of convergence of different civilizations), and because people are forced to live side by side with many different backgrounds of ethnicity, race and faiths, the only concept that will fit is a concept of pluralism.

A Moment of Truth

Narrowing the gaps between communities of different backgrounds, especially those of religious beliefs and traditional orientation, is one of the most difficult missions to achieve in largely diverse societies.

An effort to bring human interests and faiths into correspondence  containable by modern democratic concepts, maybe an impossible objective to achieve. Adopting Religious Democracy maybe a  desperate attempt to rescue what is left of “Liberal Democracy”.

From a Western prospective, such reforms may seem the solution to the Middle Eastern region. But, because the region's people may not accept this unfamiliar notation of multiplicity of religions, such concept may result in failure. 

What does the future hold for the Middle East?

In 2003 the United States took one of the most controversial decisions of invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Husein's regime, the regime change was very essential from the prospective of the bush administration in order to bring the United States back to its leading world status. A new democratic Middle East a plan conducted by the Bush administration designed to preserve U.S influence. However most trends and policy's adopted by W.Bush and the conservative right wing does not necessarily come across and in some issues conflict with the liberal’s policy's and agendas.

George Bush's plan wasn't to kill Iraqi's nor to destroy Iraq but to build it as well as rebuilding the whole region on a new foundation in accordance with his integrated plan for a Middle East that is led economically, politically and militarily by the United States. George Bush adopted the "forward Strategy of Freedom" for the Middle East as he called it, but obviously that strategy wasn't accepted by the Arab leaders of Egypt, Syria and Libya for example (who were opinionated originally by the U.S but no longer serve the interests of both U.S sides) nor by U.S liberal Opposition mostly controlled by Israeli lobbyists, Jewish economists and Tycoons in the U.S. But these leaders had been kept to serve their last mission a short term objective for Israel by resisting the Bush plan not knowing or perhaps predicting their fall.


The denial of the democratic strategy by the Arab leaders was mainly fearing of losing their ruling status as unilateral regimes that depend upon domination, repression and deprivation of freedom. Another local regional party which is Israel finds itself participating in the same idea with the Arab leaders fearing of losing their potential future influence. If such democratic strategy made its way to the Middle East at that time of uncertainty it would have brought back the balance of power scheme between the Arabs and Israel along with limiting and sizing its role.       
The situation of the Iraqi intervention produced an internal political and media conflict in the U.S as well as triggering an international media warfare from West to East backed by a ground resistance on Iraqi soil powered by Iran, Syria, and Shiite Sadr militia. 

After eight years the Bush era froze but “not over” as he stated before leaving the white house, making way for an extreme liberal government and turning the previous era’s influence into an opposition force trying to hold back in any possible way the ambitions of a new world super economical political and military power in the Middle East led by Israel supported and Backed by any liberal government that occupies the white house. As Oded Yinon mentioned in his article A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties “The transformation of the political and economic structure, so as to enable the realization of these strategic aims, is the key to achieving the entire change. We need to change from a centralized economy in which the government is extensively involved, to an open and free market as well as to switch from depending upon the U.S. taxpayer to developing, with our own hands, of a genuine productive economic infrastructure.”

Such plans and ambitions need a major change in the structure of the Middle East regimes, from unilateral to pluralistic democratic regimes, trying to clone the American system where the media and propaganda plays a major role in shaping societies. These steps are essential in order to penetrate in a liberal manner into the Arab community, hoping of achieving required Coexistence between Israel and the Arab Muslim Community, excluding the hate inherited generation after another.

In politics there is no such thing as permanent friendship or permanent enmity, but only permanent interest, as for the equation talked about above “Yesterday's Friends could be Todays Enemies”.

Presently, liberals control decision making in Washington which makes them redirect foreign policy to service their plans of new Middle East, hoping to reshape world's structure. With the fall of Mubarak significant success had been made in a country like Egypt. “Egypt is divided and torn apart into many foci of authority. If Egypt falls apart, countries like Libya, Sudan or even the more distant states will not continue to exist in their present form and will join the downfall and dissolution of Egypt.” According to Oded yinon’s 1982 "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties".

Looking at the eastern side in the Sham region, which is considered the heart of the East, another series of the "Arab Spring Revolutions" had exploded. This particular protest movement  is considered by some analysts the most significant due to its strategic and geographical location moreover to the Syrian regime's strong ideological ties with Iran and the Lebanese Hizbulla group.    


Six months had past since the beginning of the Syrian protests calling for change and overthrow of the current regime with no significant steps towards such goals. What truly marks the real change is not the fall of the Assad regime, (which has fallen already by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's occupation of Syria) but rather removing the Iranian influence in the whole region which is represented of two-pronged, its ideology, and its unilateral ruling system making way for the new pluralistic doctrine.

The Question is, can Syrian Protesters with bare chests achieve significant gains on the ground
fighting such brutal and savage occupation that is currently stretching from the Mediterranean all the way to Iran.


From the beginning of year two thousand eleven, the whole world is witnessing some major changes in the Arab & Middle East country's aimed to defect the balance of power. In blunt words, these changes are being carefully harnessed to serve a possible Zionist sponsored division of the Middle East, overthrowing the old traditional Sykes-Picot division in order to create weak, scattered and fragmented states ruled by the pluralistic democratic doctrine. A success in establishing these rules may well be the pavement of the most difficult bumpy roads in front of the ambitions of a world class competitor. 


 “Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi'ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druze’s who will set up a state. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.” According to Oded yinon’s 1982 "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" in the same article mentioned above.

Having said all of that, is it possible to predict the fate of the Pluralistic Democratic idea, or in other words can it survive facing the tyrannical extreme existence of Iran and it's allies, which has implanted corrupt extreme believes of hate in the minds of its own followers not only against the west, but an eternal hate against their Sunni neighbors? OR its time to reform the whole plan?