Arab Spring 'Lections are breaking sec sec secular (secular) bonds
"The political m"Hammedists wanted to know: Would the Americans allow them to run in free elections, even if it meant they might come to power?
The Americans turned the question back at them: Would the political m"Hammedists, if they won, allow free and democratic elections, even if it might mean losing power?
As best understood, the Preacher parties that went mainstream after hiding underground for eons in Arabic Despotries are hot! No surprise - after all, the m'sk and soccer stadiums are like the only places where the secret police would let cats gather and release some steamy heated talk.
And we get it - Slamists don't like liberal democrazy, free thinking, free press,girls, emo/goth/hip hop, cool hair dos (and a few hair don'ts), Little Satan, Great Satan's policies around the globe, fashions au courant, fun or free choice and amazingly seem to equate anything nonm"Hammedist as being an attack on m"hammedism. Tolerance ain't in their vocab. And they all seem soooo hot for something something Sharia Law
K. Fair enough - yet the call for the S'ria chiz in sunny sunny climes where Arab Spring sprung is viewed as creating a path to just and legitimate government. It places duplicitous rulers alongside their constituents under the rule of God. "For many today, living in corrupt autocracies, the call for [sharia] is not a call for sexism, obscurantism or savage punishment but for an "Slamic version of what the West considers its most prized principle of political justice: the rule of law
Turkey and Iraq seem to be the best to hope for and actively push for models
Hysterical clerical regimes have proven they are totally great at preaching, deploying panty police or banning cool emo/goth hair styles, music, fun and free choice - yet totally suck at nearly any endeavor of modern statecraft.
The problem with"Slamists, unlike those other religious politicians, is that in some places, when they have gained power, they have shut democracy down, denying secular parties a chance to compete. That's what happened in Iran. But in Turkey and Iraq, it hasn't. And there's broader evidence that over the long run, "Slamic parties aren't the threat to democracy that many believe.Iran (and HAMAS too) totally queers the mix on estabbing a caliphatical Preacher's Paradise. From mismanaging the economy, dubious foreign adventures in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq, repressing and alienating a society chock full of kids, the theocrazy preacher ran regime has been totally discredited on live tv.
Two researchers at the University of North Carolina, Charles Kurzman and Ijlal Naqvi, have studied 160 elections in the Muslim world in which "Slamist parties competed. They found that "Slamists tended to score highest in "breakthrough" elections, the first votes held after a revolution. But after that, secular parties tended to gain strength. "In general, the more routine elections become, the worse Islamic parties do," they found. "In those m"Hammedist-majority countries where elections were freest, Islamic parties performed worse." Moreover, they found that over time "Slamic parties often liberalize in order to win support from more moderate voters.
That may already be happening in Egypt, where the Ikwhan Brotherhood has said that it believes non-"slamist groups, including Xians, should get a voice in writing a new constitution, and where the leader of one major Islamist faction has called for a new and more tolerant "Slamic liberalism."
Instead, a fully crunk fundie gov may no longer be seen as an alluring mythical alternative to the wretched reality of Arab regimes in which people live - In Iran and the Strip - fundamentalism IS the wretched reality in which people live.
Pic - "Sharia don't like it - Rock the Casbah"