Όλες οι εγγραφές με ετικέτα με: "Shadi Χαμίντ"
STRATEGIES FOR ENGAGING POLITICAL ISLAM
SHADI HAMID
AMANDA Kadlec
Επίλυση του Ισλαμιστικού Διλήμματος της Αμερικής: Lessons from South and Southeast Asia
Εμπλοκή του πολιτικού Ισλάμ για την προώθηση της δημοκρατίας
Shadi Χαμίντ
Από τις επιθέσεις του Σεπτεμβρίου 11, 2001, Οι Αμερικανοί δυσκολεύτηκαν να διατυπώσουν μια γενική αρχή, μακροπρόθεσμη στρατηγική για την καταπολέμηση του θρησκευτικού εξτρεμισμού και της τρομοκρατίας στη Μέση Ανατολή. Οι περισσότεροι ειδικοί τόσο της αριστεράς όσο και της δεξιάς συμφωνούν ότι η προώθηση της δημοκρατίας θα βοηθήσει στην αντιμετώπιση των βαθύτερων αιτιών της τρομοκρατίας στην περιοχή, αν και διαφέρουν σε ποιο βαθμό. Το σκεπτικό είναι απλό: Αν οι Άραβες και οι Μουσουλμάνοι στερούνται νόμιμου, ειρηνικές διεξόδους για να εκφράσουν τα παράπονά τους, είναι πιο πιθανό να καταφύγουν στη βία. Σε μια σημαντική μελέτη του 2003, Ο Άλαν Κρούγκερ του Πανεπιστημίου Πρίνστον και η Τσέχα μελετήτρια Jitka Maleckova ανέλυσαν εκτεταμένα δεδομένα για τρομοκρατικές επιθέσεις και κατέληξαν στο συμπέρασμα ότι «η μόνη μεταβλητή που συσχετίστηκε σταθερά με τον αριθμό των τρομοκρατών ήταν ο δείκτης πολιτικών δικαιωμάτων και πολιτικών ελευθεριών του Freedom House.. Οι χώρες με περισσότερη ελευθερία ήταν λιγότερο πιθανό να είναι η γενέτειρα διεθνών τρομοκρατών.
Parting the Veil
shadi hamid
America’s post-September 11 project to promote democracy in the Middle East has proven a spectacular failure. Today,Arab autocrats are as emboldened as ever. Αίγυπτος, Ιορδανία, Τυνησία, and others are backsliding on reform. Opposition forces are being crushed. Three of the most democratic polities in the region, Λίβανος, Ιράκ, και των παλαιστινιακών εδαφών,are being torn apart by violence and sectarian conflict.Not long ago, it seemed an entirely different outcome was in the offing. Asrecently as late 2005, observers were hailing the “Arab spring,” an “autumn forautocrats,” and other seasonal formulations. They had cause for such optimism.On January 31, 2005, the world stood in collective awe as Iraqis braved terroristthreats to cast their ballots for the first time. That February, Egyptian PresidentHosni Mubarak announced multi-candidate presidential elections, another first.And that same month, after former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri wasshadi hamid is director of research at the Project on Middle East Democracyand an associate of the Truman National Security Project.Parting the Veil Now is no time to give up supporting democracy in the Muslim world.But to do so, the United States must embrace Islamist moderates.shadi hamiddemocracyjournal.org 39killed, Lebanon erupted in grief and then anger as nearly one million Lebanesetook to the streets of their war-torn capital, demanding self-determination. Notlong afterward, 50,000 Bahrainis—one-eighth of the country’s population—ralliedfor constitutional reform. The opposition was finally coming alive.But when the Arab spring really did come, the American response provide dample evidence that while Arabs were ready for democracy, the United States most certainly was not. Looking back, the failure of the Bush Administration’s efforts should not have been so surprising. Since the early 1990s, ΜΑΣ. policymakershave had two dueling and ultimately incompatible objectives in the Middle East: promoting Arab democracy on one hand, and curbing the power and appealof Islamist groups on the other. In his second inaugural address, President George W. Bush declared that in supporting Arab democracy, our “vital interests and our deepest beliefs” were now one. The reality was more complicated.When Islamist groups throughout the region began making impressive gains at the ballot box, particularly in Egypt and in the Palestinian territories, the Bush Administration stumbled. With Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza high on the agendaand a deteriorating situation in Iraq, American priorities began to shift. Friendly dictators once again became an invaluable resource for an administration that found itself increasingly embattled both at home and abroad.The reason for this divergence in policy revolves around a critical question:What should the United States do when Islamists come to power through free elections? In a region where Islamist parties represent the only viable oppositionto secular dictatorships, this is the crux of the matter. In the MiddleEastern context, the question of democracy and the question of political Islamare inseparable. Without a well-defined policy of engagement toward politicalIslam, the United States will fall victim to the same pitfalls of the past. In many ways, it already has.