There was no "Mossadegh-style democracy", he was in the process of dissolving Iran's parliament and giving himself dictatorial powers when the coup happened. The events in Iran in 1953 are very different than the America-bashing narrative would have you believe.
Yep. Iranian democracy died on May 20, 1952 when Mossadegh ordered the counting of votes in the parliamentary election to be stopped because his party had a majority but would not keep that majority if the vote count continued. There was hope for Iranian democracy to return in January-November 1979, but the hostage crisis ensured democracy would stay dead in Iran for quite a bit longer.
Ooh, that's an interesting idea. It crushes Arab fascism, so we don't get Saddam, Assad, Gaddafi, etc., AND it discredits Islamism. That seems like a win-win in my opinion.
He gets replaced by someone else in the ruling Egyptian military and business goes on. Question how does this effect the Suez crisis
How as Pan-Arabism is already popular and both Pan-Arabism and Islamism is not a united ideology. Nasser is also not as popular as in his post-Suez years nor has his memory stopped the rise of Islamism in the modern day Arab world and the popularity of the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt . You have only at best delayed the rise of Pan-Arabism and Arab Nationalism by a few years.
Nasser's charisma and popularity outside Egypt were what propped up Pan-Arabism. It died as a serious political movement after his death.
id argue the reactionary fanaticists who we ended up with are far worse. im sure most people on this forum would prefer a moderate social democracy of some kind, or atleast a capitalist oligarchy.
Ba'ath party was already popular Syria while other Pan-Arab nationalists were popular in Iraq. Iraqi monarchy was unpopular and Syria's political system was unstable. The Egyptian leadership were Arab nationalists by this time so replacing Nasser with another Arab Nationalist is not a problem. Egypt being the most populated Arab state is the natural leader of the Arab world.
Yet Dictatorships such Saddam's Iraq,Assad's Syria, and a number of others all claimed the ideology and tried to prominent it to varying levels.
Cold War social democrats were militantly anti-communist. Communism, with no exceptions that I can think of, brought tyranny and misery everywhere it went. It showed its colors when it dissolved the freely elected Russian constituent assembly in 1918.
Yes, there were plenty of people who held on to the dream that was so common during Nasser's time. But if he dies before the Suez crisis and all the other things that made him famous, it stands to reason that Pan-Arabism wouldn't have caught on like it did.
Thomas sankara in the former upper volta, now bukino faso. did nothing but good, fed the people, vaccinated them, forced everyone to respect women. killed by his best mate who sold out to the french. Thats limiting it to marxist states. i am not a marxist and make no apologies for them, but saying they are the scope of what communism is like saying absolutists are all monarchy can be or that democracy can only be liberal. i was saying centrists over communists and fascists.
Sankara banned trade unions, labeling them "counterrevolutionary," and had their members detained and brutally tortured. He also cut off all foreign aid to the country. If you want to point to an African socialist who wasn't awful, you basically only have Leopold Senghor. The African anti-colonial leaders who weren't awful tended to be liberals like Seretse Khama or Nelson Mandela, not Marxists.
