Somalia, Islam, Democracy, Confusion

ideas / words prompted by: Somalia Killings of Aid Workers Imperil Relief (nytimes)

Being weary of sounding like Samuel Huntington: what we have today is a major ideological clash. Similar to the last great ideological clash between capitalism and communism, however, with some significant differences and oddities.

The battle today is between democracy and Islamic fundamentalsim. Islam is practiced throughout the world. It is the second most practiced religion, and at danger of generalizaing, it has become the primary religion in weak, developing states. In many developing states (specifically in Africa, Asia) that have already been torn apart by western colonialism, western international institutions, and western-backed anti-communist fascist regimes, Islam is a welcome tonic. Nevertheless, the idea of a government guided solely by religion is dangerous anywhere you go. Cemented dogma, closemindedness, and authoritarian religious leaders are bad. Maybe an authoritarian leader can be good—and may even be necessary—in developing states, but whether this is true and the world will allow it to be proven true is another issue. (For instance, Hitler was popular in Weimar Germany and welcomed for the authoritative control he took over Germany’s WWI-torn economy, but then…)

The ideological war between democracy and Islamic fundamentalism is hurting mainstream Muslims (and less fundamentalist regimes) in developing states. For instance. An Islamic government emerged in Somalia bringing stability to a nation that had been termed a "collapsed state" for decades. This Islamic government defeated violent, business-like warlords and united the nation. Under this religious regime, the country was relatively peaceful for a year until the UN backed (or asked...I don't know) Ethiopian troops to invade the country and establish a non (or less) Islamic regime. The UN justified these rather strong actions by claiming that the government was connected to al-Qaeda.

Whether this is true or not, I have no idea. I’m still in college, and haven’t been anywhere near the Horn of Africa or Middle East.

What I do see is that, like in the international war between communism and capitalism, weak states trying to develop with the aid of either socialism or capitalist democracy are being torn apart by the extremes of these ideologies. Each ideology is insecure and reacts harshly to any positive middle ground that a nation might assume. Weak states are caught between major ideological powers fighting a major ideological. The US, fearing the spread of socialism to the Americas, backed Pinochet’s military government over the nationally-elected Salvador Allende. This is the story in countless other places. On the other side of things, in Afghanistan and throughout much of Africa, the USSR took power and gave weapons to leaders who would emerge as violent dictators. (Although in many cases the USSR helped liberation movements, which must be lauded).

Today, in Somalia, and throughout the world, the UN fears extreme Islam, and moderate / healthy Islamic governments that do not exterminate extremists / fundamentalists suffer. Likewise, healthy secular democracies, that do not peg Westerners as “infidels” suffer. More and more, this war is in already weak states where different (hegemonic-aspiring) ideologies grapple for supremacy.

There are of course some obvious shortcomings of this analogy. The most blatant of which is the following: while the fact that this 'battle' is between two ideologies might suggest a bipolar world (as was the case during the Cold War), instead today there exists a unipolar world with the US (and the EU) acting as the sole hegemon. More and more the representatives of the other ideological force (Islamic fundamentalism) are non-state actors (sub-state or international organizations).