I haven't read enough from reputable sources (Times, PBS, BBC) to even know what inflamed the rioting. My bad. As a general proposition, Middle East countries (and I include the off limits Israel) just don't do democracy. None of those societies has ever been based on land rich with natural resources.
Having abundant natural resources is what makes democracy possible, nothing else. The USofA had them, and a modicum of democracy, up through the end of the 19th century. The motivation was simple: if life got really bad, you just headed for Indian Territory, stole some land, let the US Cavalry protect you from the disenfranchised and displaced, and got on with life. The Tea Baggers are rooted in the notion that such a continent still exists.
The Middle East is based on rigid hierarchical (filial, tribal) control of extremely limited sustenance. The discovery of oil was just grafted onto this society. The same is seen in African oil, and to a lesser extent South American. It all comes back to natural resources. With them, democracy can exist. Without them, it's autocracy by whatever name.
Thus, the notion that Egypt or any of these other areas (the country boundaries are arbitrary European fictions) can sprout democracy in a sterile petri dish is foolish. Ain't gonna happen. For those that say, "but Israel did it", not exactly. First, the original inhabitants were tossed out by migrants from Europe, just as they did in North America. Second, Israel is on the Mediterranean, which makes it much better than inland areas. And third, it got, and still gets, lots of funds foreignly to pay for its development.
In all, Egypt can't be much different from what it has been for millennia.
30 January 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment