AHC- Stable, democratic, mideast by 2000

Cueg

Banned
Do you really feel that the Shi'i Ulema will remain dormant the whole time and submit to a secular democracy, even though in otl they refused against a progressive but still feudal monarch?

I think that, had the elected prime minister not been overthrown, the clerics wouldn't have had the will of the majority. Keep in mind that the revolution was sparked against the Shah, not for the religious leaders. Had the people not been oppressed and filled with a sense of pseudo-colonialism, there would be no cause for revolution. Whilst i do agree that the conservative elements would act as a counter to progress, much like in any society, i still have little doubt as to the potential for the aforementioned to take over the reigns of the state. Do recall that, in almost all instances, a society becomes reactionary in direct response to a perceived ailment. Without the Shah, this precondition wouldn't exist.
 
And I'd love to see a thread where Iran really rolls with religious freedom starting in the '30s or 40s. The Sikhs and the Baha'is are the easy ones, basically just because they're small minorities. Even the Hindus might be easy, even though they're polytheistic (partially). And the Jews might seem like a hard case, but they are people of the book, a small minority within Iran.

The really hard cases will probably be the different beliefs within Islam, just like the really hard cases in Europe were between the Catholics and Protestants.

But if Iran can roll on this, where college admissions treat persons with different faiths equally, etc, etc, think what else they might roll with.
 
To get this you need to do the following things (at least):
  • If one is to break-up the Ottoman Empire, then do it in a way that reflects the acutal makeup on the ground. That is have Wilsonian Armenia join Armenia/USSR, the Kurds having their own state and rest of Greater Syria/Iraq (and the Hejaz and Gulf Regions) forming their own state.
  • Keep the Saudis within Najd.
  • Have North Sudan join Egypt and South Sudan as either its own state or joining a East Africa
  • Have the Americans "encourage" the British to accept a 50/50 deal with Iran rather than launch the coup against the government in 1954.
  • Have the Americans oppose the establishment of the State of Israel in favour of allowing more Jews come to North America.
  • America should focus on gaining goodwill with Tehran to encourage them to ally with Washington.
 
Further who is supposed to move in and stop them, and why? Also, to whom would this land be given? The sultanate of Nejd had ruled this area long before western powers arrived.

The Ottomans perhaps?

Further, Ibn Saud did away with Al-Ikhwan and its anti western and pro jihadist tendencies, thus contributing to stability.

That did not stop them supporting Islamist causes though or for that matter dealing with the reglious establishment.

If you have knowledge of Islam then please enlighten me on how this Wahabism is affecting the Mid East.

Islamism would not have reached the heights it had without Saudi Financial Support (and to a lesser extent American support as well). Not that the Islamists have been sending thank yous to the House of Saud...

Further do not say Wahabi, it is highly offensive, all it is, is a term used by Sufi to defame and critique Muslim who are traditional but don't follow a Madhab.

I am aware that the Saudis themsevles reject the term, but that does not mean they are correct on this.

The moment the oil runs out, they are in trouble.

That makes their current actions in the oil sector seem even more idiotic. They need to get every dollar they can out of every barrel they sell.
 
This is very hard, but not impossible.

1) The basic elements of democratic government, as the West understands it, does not exist in Middle Eastern culture, although some elements could be jury rigged to fit. So Westernization needs to happen to some degree.

2) To achieve "modernization", a strong central state was needed which meant reformers always strengthened autocratic rule first and overrode anything which could have served as the basis of a native democratic state. This is what derailed everything IOTL.

3) The Middle East lacks a large enough middle class for sustained democratic politics. So this needs to grow and become substantial.

4) The borders imposed after World War I lacked legitimacy which complicated state building and a cohesive internal culture. However, this only applies to Iraq and Syria, really and not to other countries.

5) The creation of Israel and the Arab's continued defeats by it kept de-legitimizing the Arab states who kept responding with internal repression to stay in power.

6) Superpower rivalry in the Cold War always meant any group of would be dictators could obtain support from one or the other superpower.

I don't like going all the way back to Sykes-Picot. Not only is it not realistic that you can keep the Europeans out, I don't think there is a definite and obvious line of thought that can establish a stable and democratic Middle East. It just allows fiction writing.

The key is Egypt. It is one of the leaders of the Arab world, and was the paramount leader for several decades. If Egypt can become democratic, it can act as the mortar for the rest of the region.

Egypt did have a "liberal" period of parliamentary democracy under the monarchy. However, it suffered from the ineffectual monarchy of King Farouk, the continued presence of the British, and the government being discredited in war with the victory of Israel in 1948. This is what allowed the Free Officers to overthrow him in 1952 and eventually establishing a republic in 1953 which lead to an authoritarian dictatorship (albeit an extremely popular one for several decades). Nevertheless, during the time of the monarchy, there were elections, some form of parliamentary rule, and a building of the state.

I think if this could have been continued in Egypt, that Egypt could eventually become a democratic force in the region and with its size, population, and cultural center, it could have supported democratic transitions elsewhere, especially within the more conservative monarchies.

The first step is to defeat the Free Officers coup. Let's say Farouk learns of the coup and arrests the officers beforehand. Just to make things easier for us, let's say Nasser is killed. He is the most dangerous to Egyptian democracy since he was very charismatic, but a committed enemy to it.

This is when it gets harder. What is needed is for the constitutional monarchy to start reforming in important ways to renew support for the government - passing land reform, defying the British, economic development, and bringing the new urban middle class into the democratic system. So it is some combination of what allowed Nasser to become popular, but retaining parliamentary democracy. It is very debatable if this can actually happen, but let's assume it does.

Without the example of the Free Officers Coup, then similar incidents that deposed the monarchy in Iraq don't happen.

US support for Egypt grows as British influence diminishes. Economic aid flows into the country to build anti-communism. Over a period of several decades, democratic institutions strengthen although Egypt isn't consistently pro-West. However, Egypt's example of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary rule prompts reform in Jordan, Libya, Iraq, and parts of the Gulf. Egyptian leadership is challenged to a degree from Wahhabist Saudi Arabia and a more radicalized Syria, but not substantially.

Despite ongoing problems with Israel, there is no second Arab-Israeli war. Gaza remains part of Egypt, and the West Bank is ruled by Jordan. Eventually through diplomacy in the 1980s, the conflict is partially resolved by Arab acceptance of Israel, allowing Jews to visit the Old City of Jerusalem, and compensation for the Palestinian Arab diaspora.

Arab democratic institutions are weak for several decades, but by the 1980s prolonged experience, institutional reform, and greater competence has greatly strengthened the institutions of democracy throughout the Arab monarchies. Without "Arab Socialism" their economies are stronger, less reliant on subsidies, and offer more opportunity than the Arab economies IOTL.

There are ongoing problems especially with Islamic extremism and violence as a result of the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi export of Wahhabism, and perhaps the Iranian revolutionaries if that still happens. However, it is containable since the Middle East overall is less hostile and more prosperous. The appeal of Islamic radicalism is much less. In the past several decades, there has been no Qaddafi, Assad, or Hussein.
 
My own country the United States doesn't run a coup against the elected government of Iran in 1953.

It may be my mission on this board to interject whenever somebody mentions the 1953 coup. There are many relevant facts that get elided over in these summaries.

1) Mossadegh was Prime Minister illegally since according to the Iranian constitution the PM reports to the Shah, not the Majlis. The Shah had dismissed him, but Mossadegh stayed on. But maybe people don't care about that. Then how about...

2) Mossadegh was ruling by dictate by the time he was overthrown. Parliament was not passing laws or acting as any kind of check. Mossadegh was essentially a dictator at this point. But maybe that doesn't matter since parliament was in support of him...

3) Mossadegh had suspended the parliamentary elections earlier. He allowed the urban districts to report results, since Mossadegh and his followers were popular there. However, once a quorum was achieved and he had his majority, he suspended the elections in the other seats. That got rid of his opponents that would have caused him trouble.

4) By the time of the coup, Mossadegh's popularity was in great decline because the country was being flushed down the toilet. The economy was tanking badly, and it looked feasible a Communist coup could very well happen.

5) There was little popular outcry after the coup. Many people either disliked Mossadegh at that point, or were just happy stability was finally back.

It wasn't under the mid to late seventies when people were upset over the Shah that people retroactively decided the 1953 coup was the event that ruined everything and aborted Iranian democracy. However, Mossadegh - although seemingly a kind man - wasn't acting in a very democratic way. I think his democratic credentials are vastly overstated.

And for the most part, the US involvement in the coup was mainly limited to 1) telling the coup plotters we would not object, and 2) sending in lots of cash so that the coup plotters could hire lots of protesters to scream they wanted Mossadegh out.

This is not what I imagined happened after I first heard (way back in the dinosaur age) that the US was responsible for a coup that removed the democratically elected government of Iran. I think that's true of most people.

That may not justify the coup that removed him, or US involvement in it, but it muddies the picture quite a bit.

The Islamic Revolutionaries have never used the 1953 coup in their propaganda because the clerics were against him in 1953 since Mossadegh was a secularist.
 
This is very hard, but not impossible.

1) The basic elements of democratic government, as the West understands it, does not exist in Middle Eastern culture, although some elements could be jury rigged to fit. So Westernization needs to happen to some degree.

2) To achieve "modernization", a strong central state was needed which meant reformers always strengthened autocratic rule first and overrode anything which could have served as the basis of a native democratic state. This is what derailed everything IOTL.

3) The Middle East lacks a large enough middle class for sustained democratic politics. So this needs to grow and become substantial.

4) The borders imposed after World War I lacked legitimacy which complicated state building and a cohesive internal culture. However, this only applies to Iraq and Syria, really and not to other countries.

5) The creation of Israel and the Arab's continued defeats by it kept de-legitimizing the Arab states who kept responding with internal repression to stay in power.

6) Superpower rivalry in the Cold War always meant any group of would be dictators could obtain support from one or the other superpower.

I don't like going all the way back to Sykes-Picot. Not only is it not realistic that you can keep the Europeans out, I don't think there is a definite and obvious line of thought that can establish a stable and democratic Middle East. It just allows fiction writing.

The key is Egypt. It is one of the leaders of the Arab world, and was the paramount leader for several decades. If Egypt can become democratic, it can act as the mortar for the rest of the region.

Egypt did have a "liberal" period of parliamentary democracy under the monarchy. However, it suffered from the ineffectual monarchy of King Farouk, the continued presence of the British, and the government being discredited in war with the victory of Israel in 1948. This is what allowed the Free Officers to overthrow him in 1952 and eventually establishing a republic in 1953 which lead to an authoritarian dictatorship (albeit an extremely popular one for several decades). Nevertheless, during the time of the monarchy, there were elections, some form of parliamentary rule, and a building of the state.

I think if this could have been continued in Egypt, that Egypt could eventually become a democratic force in the region and with its size, population, and cultural center, it could have supported democratic transitions elsewhere, especially within the more conservative monarchies.

The first step is to defeat the Free Officers coup. Let's say Farouk learns of the coup and arrests the officers beforehand. Just to make things easier for us, let's say Nasser is killed. He is the most dangerous to Egyptian democracy since he was very charismatic, but a committed enemy to it.

This is when it gets harder. What is needed is for the constitutional monarchy to start reforming in important ways to renew support for the government - passing land reform, defying the British, economic development, and bringing the new urban middle class into the democratic system. So it is some combination of what allowed Nasser to become popular, but retaining parliamentary democracy. It is very debatable if this can actually happen, but let's assume it does.

Without the example of the Free Officers Coup, then similar incidents that deposed the monarchy in Iraq don't happen.

US support for Egypt grows as British influence diminishes. Economic aid flows into the country to build anti-communism. Over a period of several decades, democratic institutions strengthen although Egypt isn't consistently pro-West. However, Egypt's example of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary rule prompts reform in Jordan, Libya, Iraq, and parts of the Gulf. Egyptian leadership is challenged to a degree from Wahhabist Saudi Arabia and a more radicalized Syria, but not substantially.

Despite ongoing problems with Israel, there is no second Arab-Israeli war. Gaza remains part of Egypt, and the West Bank is ruled by Jordan. Eventually through diplomacy in the 1980s, the conflict is partially resolved by Arab acceptance of Israel, allowing Jews to visit the Old City of Jerusalem, and compensation for the Palestinian Arab diaspora.

Arab democratic institutions are weak for several decades, but by the 1980s prolonged experience, institutional reform, and greater competence has greatly strengthened the institutions of democracy throughout the Arab monarchies. Without "Arab Socialism" their economies are stronger, less reliant on subsidies, and offer more opportunity than the Arab economies IOTL.

There are ongoing problems especially with Islamic extremism and violence as a result of the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi export of Wahhabism, and perhaps the Iranian revolutionaries if that still happens. However, it is containable since the Middle East overall is less hostile and more prosperous. The appeal of Islamic radicalism is much less. In the past several decades, there has been no Qaddafi, Assad, or Hussein.

The key point goes back to post-WWI...the Egyptians had a mass protest against British rule in 1919 (the "First Revolution", as they called it), which did lead to the British granting "independence" in 1922...though as the quotation marks indicate, it was fake...
What needed to be done was Egypt getting legit independence...
 
This is very hard, but not impossible.

1) The basic elements of democratic government, as the West understands it, does not exist in Middle Eastern culture, although some elements could be jury rigged to fit. So Westernization needs to happen to some degree.

2) To achieve "modernization", a strong central state was needed which meant reformers always strengthened autocratic rule first and overrode anything which could have served as the basis of a native democratic state. This is what derailed everything IOTL.

3) The Middle East lacks a large enough middle class for sustained democratic politics. So this needs to grow and become substantial.

4) The borders imposed after World War I lacked legitimacy which complicated state building and a cohesive internal culture. However, this only applies to Iraq and Syria, really and not to other countries.

5) The creation of Israel and the Arab's continued defeats by it kept de-legitimizing the Arab states who kept responding with internal repression to stay in power.

6) Superpower rivalry in the Cold War always meant any group of would be dictators could obtain support from one or the other superpower.

I don't like going all the way back to Sykes-Picot. Not only is it not realistic that you can keep the Europeans out, I don't think there is a definite and obvious line of thought that can establish a stable and democratic Middle East. It just allows fiction writing.

The key is Egypt. It is one of the leaders of the Arab world, and was the paramount leader for several decades. If Egypt can become democratic, it can act as the mortar for the rest of the region.

Egypt did have a "liberal" period of parliamentary democracy under the monarchy. However, it suffered from the ineffectual monarchy of King Farouk, the continued presence of the British, and the government being discredited in war with the victory of Israel in 1948. This is what allowed the Free Officers to overthrow him in 1952 and eventually establishing a republic in 1953 which lead to an authoritarian dictatorship (albeit an extremely popular one for several decades). Nevertheless, during the time of the monarchy, there were elections, some form of parliamentary rule, and a building of the state.

I think if this could have been continued in Egypt, that Egypt could eventually become a democratic force in the region and with its size, population, and cultural center, it could have supported democratic transitions elsewhere, especially within the more conservative monarchies.

The first step is to defeat the Free Officers coup. Let's say Farouk learns of the coup and arrests the officers beforehand. Just to make things easier for us, let's say Nasser is killed. He is the most dangerous to Egyptian democracy since he was very charismatic, but a committed enemy to it.

This is when it gets harder. What is needed is for the constitutional monarchy to start reforming in important ways to renew support for the government - passing land reform, defying the British, economic development, and bringing the new urban middle class into the democratic system. So it is some combination of what allowed Nasser to become popular, but retaining parliamentary democracy. It is very debatable if this can actually happen, but let's assume it does.

Without the example of the Free Officers Coup, then similar incidents that deposed the monarchy in Iraq don't happen.

US support for Egypt grows as British influence diminishes. Economic aid flows into the country to build anti-communism. Over a period of several decades, democratic institutions strengthen although Egypt isn't consistently pro-West. However, Egypt's example of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary rule prompts reform in Jordan, Libya, Iraq, and parts of the Gulf. Egyptian leadership is challenged to a degree from Wahhabist Saudi Arabia and a more radicalized Syria, but not substantially.

Despite ongoing problems with Israel, there is no second Arab-Israeli war. Gaza remains part of Egypt, and the West Bank is ruled by Jordan. Eventually through diplomacy in the 1980s, the conflict is partially resolved by Arab acceptance of Israel, allowing Jews to visit the Old City of Jerusalem, and compensation for the Palestinian Arab diaspora.

Arab democratic institutions are weak for several decades, but by the 1980s prolonged experience, institutional reform, and greater competence has greatly strengthened the institutions of democracy throughout the Arab monarchies. Without "Arab Socialism" their economies are stronger, less reliant on subsidies, and offer more opportunity than the Arab economies IOTL.

There are ongoing problems especially with Islamic extremism and violence as a result of the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi export of Wahhabism, and perhaps the Iranian revolutionaries if that still happens. However, it is containable since the Middle East overall is less hostile and more prosperous. The appeal of Islamic radicalism is much less. In the past several decades, there has been no Qaddafi, Assad, or Hussein.

The other big inhibiting factor has been the influence of oil-rich gulf monarchies, in particular Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia exporting deeply conservative Salafi Islam has arguably helped cement Arab authoritarianism, since they're often seen as the only bulwark against Islamists. (And yes, there is the irony that the Saudis are big opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood, but still.)

I'll add that it helps to take a global perspective. Most of the world was undemocratic and relatively unstable after decolonization. It has only been the last few decades that Asia and Africa have moved towards democracy, and even there the progress has been hugely uneven. So the Middle East isn't necessarily that much farther behind.

A more liberal Egypt would help advance this of course. Another possibility is the Hashemites or Rashidis beating the Saudis and forestalling Wahhabism. Or have the Ottomans not enter WWI or no WWI occur. Given that most of the Arab portions of the empire remained loyal to the Ottoman state till fairly late, its collapse isn't inevitable, and given that the late Ottoman state was parliamentary, that might pave the way to much of the Middle East being a stable, democratic state today.
 
Top