| |
Francis Fukuyama: The acceptable face of the neo-cons? | Al-Ahram Weekly | Profile
by noteworthy at 9:33 am EDT, Sep 19, 2005 |
What does Fukuyama now think of America's Iraq adventure, and of claims that Iraq could somehow provide an alternative model for Arab states which, believe the neo-conservatives, have somehow become stuck in history?
He holds out hope that Arab governments can improve without becoming fully democratic. As an example, he points to Singapore, which he says is "relatively corrupt" but still manages to govern well. "Without a change on the level of ideas, any reconciliation of Islam and democracy is not going to come about. Unless you fight out that battle on the plain of ideas and say it is perfectly legitimate to have a more liberal version of religion, then I think ultimately you will have long-term problems having genuine democracy in a Muslim country. We should not minimise the fact that there is a conflict of ideas at the present, not with Islam as a religion but with particular interpretations of Islam."
|
| |
RE: Francis Fukuyama: The acceptable face of the neo-cons? | Al-Ahram Weekly | Profile
by ubernoir at 8:29 pm EDT, Sep 19, 2005 |
noteworthy wrote: if there is a big opening up in the Egyptian political system and it looks like the banned Muslim Brotherhood could capitalise on such moves to come to power -- the same concerns Hamas in the Gaza Strip -- would the US be happy with the outcome, would it want, for instance, Hamas to be the dominant political force?:
this is an important point,I think, democracy in the Middle East may not conform with the United States best short term political interests however if such forces come to power democratically they will have to learn to accomdate ( a process Iran is currently going through although of course it is only partially democratic but certainly more so than Kuwait or Saudi Arabia) they must learn to live in the wider global civil community. "America has never created democracy abroad. People who live in a society that want it have created democracy. The US can't simply decide it wants to democratise this part of the world, it has to build on internal discourse that is pushing in that direction.
"There is," Fukuyama insists, "no single global strategy that works in terms of democratic openness. Sometimes it happens from the bottom up and sometimes it happens from the up down, and to be successful it usually has to work in both ways. There has to be elite that wants change, though that desire can be supported and driven by popular participation. For example in Chile, the Philippines and Korea it required pressure on leaders on top to open up their systems and those pressures couldn't have come only from civil society. In Ukraine and Georgia on the other hand there was obviously a big push from below -- pressure in both directions is necessary. There is not one single strategy that produces democratic transition."
thats great
we need to encourage civic society
unlike Fukuyama I believe we need an International Criminal Court which by its very existance instills the values of human rights and the notion of the rule of law Fukuyama is, after all, on record -- in an interview with this paper last year -- as arguing that the Muslim world is long overdue the kind of reformation spearheaded by Martin Luther in Europe. Is it possible a more liberal Middle East could arise from such a process, and where would that leave civil society?
i understand the argument in that medieval Catholic power models were fundamentally dictatorial and Protestantism arguably led to the English Civil War, John Locke and thence liberal political theory and over time liberal democracy but a lot of blood was spilled note the 30 years war in Germany as example 1. noteworthy said He holds out hope that Arab governments can improve without becoming fully democratic
surely the point is that a civic society can grow and mature
the US wasn't the democracy we know ... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ] |
|
| | |
RE: Francis Fukuyama: The acceptable face of the neo-cons? | Al-Ahram Weekly | Profile
by Decius at 11:03 pm EDT, Sep 19, 2005 |
the cry I do not have an idealogy (i was taught by my left wing teachers) is the cry of a person so immersed in what Gramsci called hegemony that their idealogy is held entirely unconsciously.
That perspective is a bit circular. I'm not talking about hegemony. I'm talking about people who conciously choose to evaluate what they think about an issue based on their favorite philosophy as opposed to considering the effect that they wish to acheive and asking how they might acheive it. An example would be Catholics opposing sexual education in Africa on purely idealogical grounds in spite of the fact that distributing condoms will in fact lead to a healthier society there and in no way limits their ability to advocate abstinance. They justify their policies based on philosophy rather then strategy. |
|
| | | |
RE: Francis Fukuyama: The acceptable face of the neo-cons? | Al-Ahram Weekly | Profile
by ubernoir at 12:04 pm EDT, Sep 20, 2005 |
Decius wrote: the cry I do not have an idealogy (i was taught by my left wing teachers) is the cry of a person so immersed in what Gramsci called hegemony that their idealogy is held entirely unconsciously.
That perspective is a bit circular. I'm not talking about hegemony. I'm talking about people who conciously choose to evaluate what they think about an issue based on their favorite philosophy as opposed to considering the effect that they wish to acheive and asking how they might acheive it. An example would be Catholics opposing sexual education in Africa on purely idealogical grounds in spite of the fact that distributing condoms will in fact lead to a healthier society there and in no way limits their ability to advocate abstinance. They justify their policies based on philosophy rather then strategy.
I think we agree but are arguing at cross purposes. By idealogy I mean the consistent or not set of ideas and beliefs used to make judgements. What you refer to I would simply call dogma. |
|
| | | | |
RE: Francis Fukuyama: The acceptable face of the neo-cons? | Al-Ahram Weekly | Profile
by Decius at 12:45 pm EDT, Sep 20, 2005 |
I think we agree but are arguing at cross purposes. By idealogy I mean the consistent or not set of ideas and beliefs used to make judgements. What you refer to I would simply call dogma.
Prehaps, but the word dogma usually applies to religious people. The thing I'm reaching at applies to other kinds of analysis, such as the idea that free markets are always more efficient, or the idea that social programs always improve people's standard of living, or the idea that war is always unjustified. |
|
Francis Fukuyama: The acceptable face of the neo-cons? | Al-Ahram Weekly | Profile
by Decius at 1:56 pm EDT, Sep 19, 2005 |
"Without a change on the level of ideas, any reconciliation of Islam and democracy is not going to come about. Unless you fight out that battle on the plain of ideas and say it is perfectly legitimate to have a more liberal version of religion, then I think ultimately you will have long-term problems having genuine democracy in a Muslim country. We should not minimise the fact that there is a conflict of ideas at the present, not with Islam as a religion but with particular interpretations of Islam."
There are some interesting quotes from Fukuyama in here, unfortunately spun together by a reporter who is trying to push him into a partisan pigeonhole. I don't think Fukuyama is a neoconservative any more then I think he is a democrat. His thinking is driven by observations and not ideaologies. On a somewhat unrelated tangent, it strikes me that the fundamental problem with ideaologies is that people have a tendancy to prefer ideas that are philisophically pure to ideas that that actually work well for people in practice. This is because philiophical purity is easier to accept then messy reality with its endless caveats. Once you've got an ideaology you can reach a conclusion on any issue based on how that ideaology informs you to think about the matter rather then based on the actual realities of the matter itself. This fallacy seems the core problem at all ends of the spectrum. It infects communists, fundamentalists, and libertarians alike. Most idealogical (and partisan) commentators frame their points of view as "the other guy's ideology doesn't work in practice, so we should prefer the most pure form of my ideaology." In order to move past this we must get people to observe that ideaologies don't work. In order to do that, there must be a word for the ideaological fallacy. What is that word? Does anyone here know? |
|
|
