Clash of Civilizations

["j hollis" <lemurtide@hotmail.com>]

I read Huntington's article this last weekend. I realize we haven't begun 
the discussion of it yet, but I feel compelled to throw some initial 
reactions onto the table:
First, I instinctively distrust anyone who claims to have puzzled out the 
currents of sociological history, weaving them in order to predict the 
future directions they will take, in one short essay- with one simple 
answer.
I do not think Huntington's proposal is entirely illegitmate; instead I find 
it painfully incomplete.
For example, on p.10 he states:
"Many Arab countries...are reaching levels of development where autocratic 
forms of govt. become inappropriate"(let's hope so),further  "efforts to 
introduce democracy become stronger. Some openings in Arab political systems 
have occurred. The priciple beneficiaries of these openings have been 
Islamist movements."
This is an observation which I would say is accurate- but he goes on to 
conclude:
"In the Arab world, in short, Western democracy strengthens anti-Western 
political forces."
OK, the implication here is 'if we give these people democracy they will 
choose Islamists to replace their government.' Taken in the context of his 
hyposthesis, the reader understands Huntington's belief that this "choice" 
of the people is based on religious/cultural loyalty. That "anti-Western" 
Islamic forces are the only thing that can develop in this civilazation.
However, if you take the case of the Islamists (politically/socially active 
Islamic organizations) in Egypt and the Occupied Territories, you can point 
to quite a different source of loyalty.
The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas draw loyalty by providing charitable 
services (food, shelter- even medical attention) to the large impoverished 
sectors of these countries. They save them from a poverty, which itself 
results largely from the folly and corruption of the government in Egypt's 
case, or the methods of oppression of the occupying state in the case of 
Israel (forbiddance of trade, curfews, travel restrictions preventing access 
to jobs, etc.).
Also working in their favor is the suppression of political activity in 
these areas. These Islamist groups are favored with an organized system of 
mosques, where they can command the attention of the people whom they aid. 
The authoritarian governments, although they do attempt to suppress Islamic 
political activities, are not in a position to shut down churches and 
charitable organizations without producing a backlash which would be 
incredibly violent, at least.
As for the more democratic "pro-Western" political challengers to these 
states,they often face difficulties organizing, getting their message out to 
their constituencies (because of state-owned broadcasting restrictions) and 
participating in elections.
These things are also often difficult to carry out from inside a prison 
cell, where organizers of such groups are known to spend significant 
portions of their time.
In the case of monarchies, religious groups are empowered as a source of 
legitimacy for the rulers. It would be difficult to hold your claim of holy 
right to rule (because of relation to the Prophet), if you concurrently went 
around suppressing the religious authorities.
I will not say that there is no difference between a society dominated by a 
religion which is also a strict foundation for practical law and culture 
(Islam- or Judaism, for that matter), and one whose philosophy is more open 
to interpretation- however, this is but one component and does not replace 
the basis of a human nature common to all "civilizations".
Anyway, that's quite enough for now. Any thoughts?



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.