Join on WhatsApp
Join on Telegram
Because Western intellectuals served as the frontline in the military conquest and eventual colonization of non-Western lands that supposedly needed to be saved an civilized, it goes without saying that ideas and paradigms promoted in the West over the last fifty years have intentionally or unintentionally participated in the go-ahead wars for the triumph of one culture over the rest.
The paradigms sparked a serious debate about the true self vs. the false self in developing societies, leaving no room for eventual accommodation with hegemonic Western cultures. The pro-enlightenment thinkers eventually became trapped in their own logic. They didn’t know whether to push forward or take a pause.
False image of Enlightenment and Orientalism
In fact, the impact of the epistemological break witnessed in eastern societies is still being felt. Indeed, hegemonic cultures show a two-faced goodwill and openness while remaining reluctant to accept invitations to debate on topics that involve an existential dimension for both the West and the East.
Issues related to ethnicity, social ostracism, xenophobia, language, and past cultural humiliation are at stake. They are dealt with in the West and ignored in the rest of the world. As a matter of retaliation, a reaction such as “Why do they hate us?” resonates so true.
Indeed, if we look back a century or so, we discover that values of democracy and human rights have been shaped in such a way that similar rules in use in other societies (i.e., local practices in the Amazigh societies in North Africa) are being stigmatized, if not despised.
For example, the Middle Eastern Renaissance movement began with the assumption that someone would create some sort of “table rase” and start everything from scratch. This won’t be possible on the condition that a rule based on two levels is respected. The first level consists of using preeminence and the right to break in order to shape and impose a single rule. The second level allows enlightened people in the targeted societies to merely adjust or leave the stage.
Hence, in 1970, when Sadeq J. Al-Azm came up with his argument questioning religious thought, he was praised for a while in the intellectual sphere in the West. Then he was ignored when his argument proved to be even more diametrically opposed to Western values. Western intellectuals found out that Al-Azm intended to spark a cultural revolution to liberate Arab and Islamic minds from hegemonic Western ideas.
In the Middle East, Al-Azm was harassed because he argued that Arabs had been living outside of history, partly because they had been subjugated and accepted to promote myths rather than the facts of their stolen history. Their freedom wouldn’t be realized if they stayed trapped in the past.
Al-Azm’s contribution, among others, was a solid argument from both the West (the US and Europe) and the East (the Soviet Union) to wage a war in the Middle East amid the effervescence of the Cold War.
The option for regime change was accepted as obvious, no matter who would be in charge in the Middle Eastern and North African countries. Thus, governments with socialist and authoritarian rules have been promoted, while governments described as liberal or semi-authoritarian have been tolerated.
Then, when the rise of conscientiousness started to spread and these experiences proved to be a failure, the Western policy planners made the decision to pick up the religious movements belonging to a hypothetical moderate Islam to get the job done. This was decided amid the erosion and collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990.
Read also: Europe, France: The Root Causes of Morocco’s Growing Defiance
Martin Kramer was correct in his assumption that the political opposition in the Middle East was not ready to seize power in the main countries chosen. He meant Arab public figures in the United States and Europe. He didn’t exclude civil society’s militants, who were supposed to take the lead in the political struggle.
Yet Kramer didn’t mention the political movements that had their chances in Morocco, Kuwait, and Jordan. The developing countries made a big effort in order to open up the system and get as many people as possible interested in politics. Nevertheless, his point sounds accurate because, later, in the midst of the Arab Spring, the new forces dispatched in politics, in the same fashion as before, were not prepared.
Political forces became entangled in pointless issues. Instead of introducing bold reforms, they engaged in sterile debates promoting either secular or messianic messages. They failed and then retaliated by taking revenge on each other or by challenging or blaming what they call the deep state. They thought that they had been selected because they deserved to work hand in hand with their foreign support, assuming that they could behave independently from their sponsors.
In fact, these experiences failed because the actors involved made the same mistake as policymakers in the United States and Europe: believing that regime change was the only and final option. The latter were perceived as Samaritans whose main mission is to help free the rest of the world from authoritarian regimes at any expense.
The problem is that actors in developing societies have been educated to use cultural amnesia as a means to save what they can. Amadou Hampâté Ba, a Malian thinker, said in 1960 that “When an old man dies in Africa, a library burns down.” This is true, and that is why the colonial powers have refused until now to declassify the colonial archives. When pressed to do so, they prove to be more aggressive than ever.
Read also: The Myth of the ‘Developing Nation’ is Falling Apart
As a result, French officials summoned their African counterparts several times to clarify their stance on the French military’s presence on the continent. In Spain, colonial nostalgics, led by former Head of Government Jose Maria Aznar, are waging a war against the socialist Pedro Sanchez, the current Head of Government, for taking a different stand on the Sahara issue.
Aznar, who will never forget the setback inflicted on him following the Leila Island military conflict between Spain and Morocco in 2002, is working hard to halt the advanced process of normalization between the two countries.
On another level, Germany and France’s hostility, if not outright enmity, toward Turkey is a further proof that what matters for the West is a tailored political ecosystem that would never jeopardize European geopolitical interests. Forget about their hymns praising Kemal Ataturk. Don’t take for granted their keen celebration of Mikhail Gorbatchev and his Perestroika, especially as this seemingly adored Soviet leader was eventually thrown by the West like a rotten apple.
Instead, keep in mind that all political figures who were promoted in Europe and the United States and assisted in their rise to power were later abandoned. They were blamed for claiming their countries’ right to choose and be a little free of all forms of foreign hegemony.
The all-out democracy promoters in the West, mainly in Europe, kept a low profile and preferred to look elsewhere. They were, for their part, trapped in their political culture and controversial history. They need a cultural revolution so they can make their case and convince people in the Middle East and North Africa to somehow trust them and work with them in good faith.
The first part of this analysis can be accessed here.
