The tip-off that there is less here than meets the eye is that line "only those who subscribe to the three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, known as the "people of the book" (Ahl el-Kitab), are regarded as fully human". I'm not going to argue with Mr. Taheri about what Islam provides, but obviously this is a rule honored more in the breach than in the observance by the most vocal modern Islamists.

In they can ignore this tenet of the religion, than why not ignore other tenets, when the time comes.

Well, that was the great gamble, wasn't it?

Perhaps the goals should have been more modest. Perhaps there was no way they could have been.

But all this second guessing and panic is doing no one any good.

It ain't over til the fat lady sings. It ain't over by a long shot.

First, there's only one "p" in my name.

Second, I don't think Amir Taheri is excluding Shiism. He is, after all, a Shi'ite himself and points to Khomeni, who was far more familiar with the modern West than people give him credit for. Nor is there really any record of Shia' democracy taking form. It seems far more convenient to the rule of strongmen and fakirs.

Third, something that people rarely look at, if only the "Ahl al-Kitab" are fully human, what about us unbelievers? Or Hindus or Buddhists? The Western system of democracy doesn't allow for any kind of heirarchy or honorary dispensations. Either you can set aside all religious differences for the sake of governance or you can't. There is no permanent middle ground.

Fourth, I don't see how you can say Turkey has made Islam and democracy "easily...function together." Considering the fact that the military has had to safeguard secularism through several interventions, "easily" and "democratic" don't seem to apply.

Which Western nation has a better track record? When is their Civil War?

C'mon, Orrin. Don't play cute. Even during the Civil War, no one on either side questioned the idea of a secular government under civilian control, subject to a vote. The military in a supervisory role would have been rejected.

You suggested their democracy should be doubted because the military has enforced secular rule. But the West's shouldn't despite Civil Wars, revolutions, etc.?

Apparently you are conceding, Orrin, that unShia Islam is incapable (or perhaps unpromising) for democracy.

So, that leaves Shiaism.

So, why isn't the history of Iran the model for what Shiaism leads to when used as a political template?

Harry:

No, an unreformed Sunni Islam is incapable. Evidence suggests it is easily Reformed.

If Iraq follows the Iran model it will be verging on a liberal democracy in about twenty-five years. That seems an exceptionally quick evolution by Western standards.

The difference in the two examples is where the democracy is coming from. With us, it came from the bottom up. In the Islamic, including Turkey, it has to be imposed from the top down. That's not a formula for stable democracy. It's quite the opposite.

Iran was a popular democratic revolt. It's popular in Iraq, though the dictator had to be removed first. In Turkey it was led from above, just as in most Western nations--indeed, it's frequently imposed from without, as upon Japan, Germany, etc.. If you'd had a vote in America in 1776 democracy likely would have lost. The elite revolutionaries didn't bother to ask.

There's so much bad history in that post, I don't know where to begin. Yes, the Iranians voted in the current government, but they voted essentially to trust the religious authorities with everything. Germany had democratic institutions before the war, and they had developed a secular sphere as far back as the 16th century. Japan was changed, but only after a ruinous war had completely discredited their leadership (a war we are not going to wage, BTW). As for the U.S., the FF built on existing Anglo-Saxon institutions. The whole idea behind the Revolution was "No taxation without representation." The people weren't about to abolish their existing state institutions once the British left. As for the Turks, their democracy will last until the next crisis. That's because it's a cultural deviation for them, not a norm.

It's a cultural deviation for everyone in historic terms, generally short-lived so far as we can tell, with only America, Britain and a very few others maintaining it for very long. Yet every nation on Earth is converging on it because it's the only system that works. Islam is less mighty than you imagine--it too will yield.

Democracy (or popular self-government of any kind) is, at bottom, nothing but the consent of the governed. It is one thing where form does not follow function -- or precede it, either.

By that understanding, Turkey is a sham democracy, because hardly any of its inmates consent to be governed.

We Americans might think, or hope, that long pretense at being democratic would sooner or later lead people to want to govern themselves.

The evidence that it works that way is thin.

>Islam is less mighty than you imagine--it too
>will yield.

But at what cost? To us and to them?

I remember before the Second Russian Revolution the belief that it would take nothing short of a full nuclear war to break apart and end the USSR.

This turned out not to be the case (though there are switchpoints where it could have swung that way). Which case will it be for Islam?

Harry:

That's the great conservative insight--there's rather little evidence that anyone wants to govern themselves, so democracy leads quickly to statism.

Ken:

We should have nuked them and saved ourselves the five miserable decades of Cold War, but the Islamic world is far weaker militarily and in the information age stands no chance ideologically.

Derek is right that Turkey's path to democracy was different from many in the West (top down), but the initial top-down drive from Ataturk and the ongoing (but lessening) influence of the military has been primarily to ensure the separation of Mosque and State. The average Turk agrees with that today, even the government (and Islamic party does) is committed to this, and EU ascention would really solidify this. Turley has certainly had a few economic and political crisis, and they have survived them. I am not selling them short yet.

More generally, can belief in uncompromising religious hierarchies and dogma can get in the way of democracy: yes they can. And an unreformed Islam more than post reformation Christianity? You bet. So the recipe for Muslim nations, much like for ours, is separation of Mosque and State. If Muslims are willing to do that, they have a shot. If not, and they freely choose a theocracy, they have a 50-50 chance of outperforming a forced, secular dictatorship. Looks to me like the odds are far from certain, but interesting. My sense is that the more the people have to feel good about in the secular arena, the less they will have to hang on to Islam for anything but spirituality. Helping them helps the cause.

Other posts have dealt with comparative routes to democracy, and each side can certainly pick cases to support the "born to be" democratic vs "the bred to be". Would be interested in hearing what does Spain's, Chile's, Brazil's, South Africa's, non-Germany Eastern Europe's, South Asia's experience suggest.

The Czech Republic seems to be a success story, and the only experience they had with democracy was between 1918 - 1938.
Since I doubt many Czech citizens remember that experience, they essentially started from scratch.

>It's a cultural deviation for everyone in
>historic terms, generally short-lived so far as
>we can tell, with only America, Britain and a
>very few others maintaining it for very long.

Like I keep trying in vain to convince other Americans:

Throughout history, Saddam, Uday, and Qusay are what's NORMAL. US AMERICANS -- WE'RE THE FREAKS.

I don't think government by consent has to result in a spiral into statism. People can teach themselves.

We have evidence. Orrin has not yet been burned at the stake for his Christian heresies. Out of 19 Christian centuries, only in the past 3 could that have happened.

In principle, Islam could be tamed. Its situation now is not all that different from Christian Europe in 1600, when no one in his right mind would have predicted widespread popular self-government and international peace, although there were wisps of the former visible in Holland and England.

It took a mere 350 years.

Islam does not have that kind of time left.

Harry:

Todayt we burn those who don't conform to the state: Waco, Communists, etc.

OJ:

Surely you jest. Our society is far from conformist, and, absent the odd conflagration, I don't see any torch parades in my neighborhood.

Jeff:

It';s completely conformist, which is why the political parties are so indistinguishable on most issues.

We burn Communists?

No, we don't burn much of anyone, but only because times have changed, not because religion was especially brutal then.