On the Democratization of the Middle East

Recently, I attended a seminar given by the Institute for Humane Studies. During this seminar, several pro-libertarian/classical liberalist professors presented lectures concerning various topics. One of the professors, Daniel Drezner, an Associate Professor who specializes in international relations at the University of Chicago, made an argument supporting the war in Iraq. (You can view Drezner’s blog at http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/.) His reason was that this is the only way to democratize Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. I utterly disagree with this claim. My reason is that the Iraqis have no stake in their newly implemented government. I, however, contend that the way to democratize the Middle East is through developing a new source of energy to replace oil and through globalization.

The war in Iraq will not aid in democratizing Iraq and ultimately the Middle East. This is because, simply, the Iraqis did not bring democracy to Iraq themselves. In other words, they do not have a stake in the new attempt at democracy. It was not their blood but the blood of mainly Americans and British that brought an attempt at democracy in Iraq. To illustrate, let us say you invest hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars, into some business. Are you not going to actively monitor that investment to ensure it results in profitable success? Iraqis did not provide the investment for an Iraqi democracy.

Now, you may say that the U.S. was successful in installing democracy in Japan following World War II. However, there is a significant difference between Japan and Iraq. Japan is a society that is highly homogenous. This homogeneity makes it much easier for compromise, which is a characteristic inherent in democracies, to occur. Iraq, in contrast, is not a homogenous society. It is composed of three competing and disagreeing religious groups: the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds. Disagreement over religious beliefs will make it difficult for compromise to occur. On the other hand, had they had the chance to band together to bring democracy to Iraq, the story would be different. The reason is they would have been able to establish a relationship in which they would be working together.

Oil is a source of power in the Middle East. If there is anything that will create the momentum need for a movement towards democracy, it will be removing this source of money and power. This needs to be done through establishing a new and reliable source of energy to replace oil. This would effectively decrease the demand for oil, which will decrease the price of oil. The result is there is less money going to the Middle Eastern authoritarian leaders. Less money means less power. Consequently, this will make it easier for the people to revolt.

Globalization will also aid in the democratization of the Middle East. Almost all of the Middle East countries are closed off to the rest of the world. One of the benefits of globalization is the spread of ideas. If these closed off countries could open up, new ideas, such as the principles of democracy, can exported to those closed Middle Easter countries.

The war in Iraq will most likely not lead to a successful democratization in Iraq and ultimately the Middle East. This is because Iraqis do not have a stake in the new attempt at democracy. The only way to do so is through decreasing the influential power of oil, through globalization, and possible through other avenues other than war.