Brian Sikma
A paradox of values
By Brian Sikma
Perhaps the only point of clarity amidst the massive public protests in Egypt over the past half a week or so is that the administration of President Hosni Mubarak is deeply unpopular with the majority of Egyptians. While all parties seem to agree that Mubarak must go, there is very little indication that these popular protests have as their goal the establishment of a Western-style democratic state. The opposition groups have attempted to use the language of freedom to build international support for their cause, but a recent piece in the Washington Examiner takes a look at some polling done in Egypt on popular views regarding the role of religion in society.
In the Middle-East with its strong Islamic culture, democracy as traditionally understood by the Western mind is frequently tempered by strongly held local beliefs about the importance and centrality of religion and its role in society and government. While the West draws its understanding of freedom from Judeo-Christian values, those religions believe that ultimately every human being is responsible to God for his or her actions and beliefs. Aberrations from this point have produced significant amounts of chaos and tragedy.
To the Islamic mind, religion and the state are one. No transition away from this view has found widespread foothold in Islamic thought and so to this day many Muslims still believe that religion and state are inseparably wedded together. In Egypt, the Middle-East's most populous nation, this view still holds apparent sway. The Pew Research Center poll written about in the Examiner found numerous paradoxes between the rhetoric embraced by Egyptians and the particular policies they find acceptable.
For example, 84% of Egyptians believe that the death penalty is an acceptable and appropriate punishment for those who convert from the Islamic faith. At the same time, 80% of Egyptians value free speech. Down the list of parallels one might go, finding majority support for values such as democratic government, an independent judiciary, and practical measures such as mandatory workplace gender discrimination and support for the morality of suicide bombings.
Why may such opposing ideas exist simultaneously? The answer may be found in the difference between a statement of values and a statement of policy. We in the West understand the full ramifications of such values as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and independent and impartial judicial systems. We understand that such values carry with them particular policy implications that may or may not agree with our individual preferences. In Egypt, those opposed to the present regime understand that democracy affords them the chance rid themselves of Mubarak and establish a government in accordance with their own wishes and desires. They do not yet understand that democracy, true republican democracy, as a system binds the majority as much as, or more than, any minority.
The moral acceptability of a suicide bomber is a value, but it is also a policy, it is a policy of waging war and expressing ideas in the Middle East. Killing anyone that leaves Islam for another religion is a policy; yes it flows from values, but is a policy. In questioning Egyptians about policies and about values that are Western in nature, there is a sense in which we are comparing apples to oranges. Because the majority of Egyptians do not understand the values behind freedom, they ascribe to such value statements their own interpretation. This creates a synthesis between their understanding of policies they support (such as near unification of church and state) and values they wish to have since they will — in their mind — advance their own interests.
Whether or not democracy may be exported fully to any nation that has a civilizational system of values based on a non-Western moral currency remains to be proven. Iraq has made strides, but it is hardly the example of freedom that Israel is. Why this is so may be found in the Jewish nature of Israel as it is directly tied to the Judeo-Christian values system that forms the bulwark of Western morals. Apart from the definition of acceptable values that we have come to accept as baseline, any other definition will yield only short-term political progress at the expense of a lasting foundation. The trick, of course, is for the nations of the West to understand this and then maneuver to properly direct unrest towards a conclusion that is primarily satisfactory to our own interests and regional stability, and secondarily satisfactory the ones who are presently unhappy with the current regime.
© Brian Sikma
February 2, 2011
Perhaps the only point of clarity amidst the massive public protests in Egypt over the past half a week or so is that the administration of President Hosni Mubarak is deeply unpopular with the majority of Egyptians. While all parties seem to agree that Mubarak must go, there is very little indication that these popular protests have as their goal the establishment of a Western-style democratic state. The opposition groups have attempted to use the language of freedom to build international support for their cause, but a recent piece in the Washington Examiner takes a look at some polling done in Egypt on popular views regarding the role of religion in society.
In the Middle-East with its strong Islamic culture, democracy as traditionally understood by the Western mind is frequently tempered by strongly held local beliefs about the importance and centrality of religion and its role in society and government. While the West draws its understanding of freedom from Judeo-Christian values, those religions believe that ultimately every human being is responsible to God for his or her actions and beliefs. Aberrations from this point have produced significant amounts of chaos and tragedy.
To the Islamic mind, religion and the state are one. No transition away from this view has found widespread foothold in Islamic thought and so to this day many Muslims still believe that religion and state are inseparably wedded together. In Egypt, the Middle-East's most populous nation, this view still holds apparent sway. The Pew Research Center poll written about in the Examiner found numerous paradoxes between the rhetoric embraced by Egyptians and the particular policies they find acceptable.
For example, 84% of Egyptians believe that the death penalty is an acceptable and appropriate punishment for those who convert from the Islamic faith. At the same time, 80% of Egyptians value free speech. Down the list of parallels one might go, finding majority support for values such as democratic government, an independent judiciary, and practical measures such as mandatory workplace gender discrimination and support for the morality of suicide bombings.
Why may such opposing ideas exist simultaneously? The answer may be found in the difference between a statement of values and a statement of policy. We in the West understand the full ramifications of such values as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and independent and impartial judicial systems. We understand that such values carry with them particular policy implications that may or may not agree with our individual preferences. In Egypt, those opposed to the present regime understand that democracy affords them the chance rid themselves of Mubarak and establish a government in accordance with their own wishes and desires. They do not yet understand that democracy, true republican democracy, as a system binds the majority as much as, or more than, any minority.
The moral acceptability of a suicide bomber is a value, but it is also a policy, it is a policy of waging war and expressing ideas in the Middle East. Killing anyone that leaves Islam for another religion is a policy; yes it flows from values, but is a policy. In questioning Egyptians about policies and about values that are Western in nature, there is a sense in which we are comparing apples to oranges. Because the majority of Egyptians do not understand the values behind freedom, they ascribe to such value statements their own interpretation. This creates a synthesis between their understanding of policies they support (such as near unification of church and state) and values they wish to have since they will — in their mind — advance their own interests.
Whether or not democracy may be exported fully to any nation that has a civilizational system of values based on a non-Western moral currency remains to be proven. Iraq has made strides, but it is hardly the example of freedom that Israel is. Why this is so may be found in the Jewish nature of Israel as it is directly tied to the Judeo-Christian values system that forms the bulwark of Western morals. Apart from the definition of acceptable values that we have come to accept as baseline, any other definition will yield only short-term political progress at the expense of a lasting foundation. The trick, of course, is for the nations of the West to understand this and then maneuver to properly direct unrest towards a conclusion that is primarily satisfactory to our own interests and regional stability, and secondarily satisfactory the ones who are presently unhappy with the current regime.
© Brian Sikma
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
