What were the origins of the interwar political parties in Iraq, Syria, andEgypt? Why did these parties (and their associated parliamentary systems)fail to survive?
The formation of interwar political parties had a start from the Ottoman Empire during the early phases of colonialism .Yaacov (2010) observes that, during the war II, the Ottoman empires started losing to the allied forces. The turn of events for the other forces in the allied force led to a number of political organizations. There was for instance the formation of polities like Turkey, Egypt, Palestine, Trans-Jordan(Jordan),Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Allen (2008) develops that although these parties were formed during the early years of the defeat period, not all of them led to the achievement of the independence. It is only Turkey that finally led to the independence of the state.
The parties failed to survive due to several reasons. Some of the reasons were as a result of the political subdivisions and the interference of the colonial masters in arrears of the parties. For instance, the British are known to have interfered with the governance scheme even after leaving the throne. Major parts of the country were still under their control, while the parties assumed a less involved government.
Another factor that led to the death of the political parties and their affiliations was the lack of support from the majority of the people Yaacov (2010). This is attributed to the failure of the parties’ leaders to speak for the people. Yaacov also notes that although the Wafd politicians in Egypt and their rivals claimed to speak for the people, they were more concerned about their self-contentment and development. Therefore, the people left abandoned their support and joined other political wings which seemed to address their issues. There was also the issue of Islam and the cultural disintegration. Most of the reformist political leaders were enamored by the British political systems and were set to modernize Egypt. They, therefore, adopted non-Muslim cultural leadership traits. This was contrary to the Muslim and the Arab world. The members of the parliamentary systems thought that the British culture and the European political influence was superior and worth emulating. By doing so, they avoided the traditional kingdoms. The consequence was the formational of anti-British government parties like the famous Muslim Brotherhood party. This contributed towards the failure of the pioneer interwar political parties.
The Belfour declaration is a connection of the early letter advanced by Arthur Balfour, Britain’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Rothschild. The letter read that the majesty’s government had agreed and would support an establishment of a hole for the Jews in the land of Transjordan. The statement was quite brief but has sparked horrific memories in the history of the people in the region. The Belfour declaration is attributed to the agreement that was accorded to Rothschild (a British Jew leader). This was to become the leading causative agent in the rise of feuds and clashes after the creation of the Jewish state in the Transjordan region.
The Balfour declaration is accredited to having started the New Israel state in the Transjordan region. The land was seen as a region that would be utilized by the Jewish immigrants who had hoped for the establishment of a settlement in the region. Yaacov (2010) observes that Jews from all walks of life poured into the region and started establishing communities and residences in the region. After the German holocaust, the stakes of establishing an Israel nation were level high. This formed the stakes upon which the Israelites started the settlements in the region. The declarations allowed the Israelites communities to settle in the region but were wary of the impending danger. Later, when the declaration of independence was declared the surrounding Muslim nations viewed this as a catastrophe. They poured armies across the boards. The newly formed nation reacted and rebuffed them. This was to form the start of decades of war between the nations at the border.
What is the "democracy deficit" that plagues the Middle East? Why does this condition affect the region? What accounts for its continued persistence?
The democratic plague of the Middle East is characterized by a multiplicity of factors. Allen (2008)argues that the region is characterized by a failure in historic democratic space. The region has no history of a democratized political conglomeration. This has affected the area negatively leading to the continued fighting and lack of sound political systems. There is also the question of endogenous cultural and political environments. The region has a vast history in insecurity. The Middle East is noted as one of the most insecure regions across the Arab lands. The insecurity is a hostile factor towards the development of a democratic society
Allen (2008) contends that the “exogenous rentier” state also contributes to the lack of a democratic society in the area. This can be attributed to the various factors of, international foreign pressures and rents. The “rentier” state impedes the process of democratization in the nations since the rich foreign nations block the development in one or another through the indulgence of giving foreign aids, military assistance, which is paid back in terms of mineral exploitations or oil exports to their countries. With increased feuds and continued fighting from the inhabitant communities and the continued support from the foreign godfathers, the situation has continued to manifest itself. This is because the countries in the region lack proper historical basis upon which their exposure to democratic utility is based. This has ensured that the same development continues.
What is Import Substituting Industrialization? How does it seek to produce economic growth? Has this approach worked in the Middle East? Explain why and offer at least two examples of its use by countries in the region.
Import substituting industrialization refers to an economic policy in which the incumbent government does not rely on foreign imports. The policy speculates that the government adopts a purely domestic approach in terms of the investors. The country, therefore, seeks to promote the domestic market by only restricting imports to essentials. Allen (2008) holds that the adoption of the policy by countries such as Malaysia and the whole of East Asia was the sole reason behind the increased development in the 1970s. The approach paved way for the domestic development and the governments boosted domestic development in the country. This was to lead to the development of strong internal market and employability of its citizens. The balance of state in terms of the economic growth leads to the emergence of the economic tigers of Asia.
The approach has worked partly in the Middle East but has had negative impacts in most of the countries. Allen (2008) contends that the major reason for failure in most of the countries is that they majorly rely on the oil. For example, oil exports in Iraq and Iran are immensely rewarding as compared to when the countries try to refine them in the local market. The loss of foreign exchange has resulted to inflations in the regions resulting to print of cash. This ripple effect caused the discomfort in the region.
What key streams of Islamism can be identified in the contemporary Middle East? What attributes do they share? How do they differ? How do you think the rise of Islamism in the Middle East will affect the transition to democracy in the region?
There are quite a number a number of streams of Islamism in the Middle East. Some of the most are the reformist Islamic, conservatives and the radical Arab Muslims. The reformist Islamists have a different back leaning in the modernization theory. Yaacov (2010) observes that the reformist adopt a westernized form of life as opposed to the conservationists who still hold deeply in the religious indulgences, in the everyday life. The rise of Islam in the Middle East may have a positive and a possible negative effect in the ruling of the countries in the region. For instance, Yaacov (2010) observes that the conservatives blatantly oppose the emulation of foreign cultures and the ‘politization’ of the region. They advance for an Islamic government. This hinders the democratic space in the region since people are denied the space and freedom of expression (Yaacov, 2010).
Why has political reform in Iran failed since the advent of the Islamic Revolution? What accounts for the continued existence of the clerical regime?
The political failure can attribute to a number of factors. Allen (2008) observes that, after the rise of Islam revolution in the Middle East, there were numerous blatant, disregards to the rule of law. There were widespread corruption and competition between the rulers who took over, after the secularism advanced by Sadam Hussein. There was also the rearmament where the incumbent regimes purchased the dollar in a bid to arm themselves. The declaration of Islam state meant that all those people who were anti Islam were declared infidels (Yaacov, 2010). This led to the death of millions through armed struggle and war between the infighting regimes
The clerical regimes are held together due to the conservative regimes that have held the revolution. The Islamic religion itself is one which is manipulative. It would be a long time for the clerical regimes to be disbanded since they highly held as the supreme councils of governance in the traditional governance of the Arab world. The chronic developed with other nations in the Middle East also makes it difficult to direct make a case of the regime, hence continued response.
Another reason that has been advanced is the fact that the Muslim brotherhood seemed to promise another able ideology after the failure of secularism in the Middle East. The region had experienced different regimes in the region that instigated that had failed. The introduction of statism, nationalism, socialism and liberalism had failed to mesh up in the region. This therefore created a yearning by the area to develop a power which avoided the ideologies borrowed from Europe. The Muslim clerics promised to deliver this, hence remained in power.
What is the "Oslo-process"? Did it succeed? What are the main Obstacles to a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement?
The Oslo process refers to the American sponsored peace negotiation process between the Arabs and the Israelites after the 1992 gulf war. On the Arabs sides were the Palestinians, Jordanian, and Syrians. The process did not succeed due to a number of reasons. Allen (2008)asserts that the process failed because the Israelites failed to honor the agreement of the peace process. This led to the crumble of the peace talks and eventual closure of the sessions.
Major obstacles to the Israel-Palestinian peace agreement include the political interference from the external world. The foreign influence in the middle has been one of the key factors that have added to the internal conflicts. The refusal by Netanyahu and the Arab league to accept the terms of the Oslo is also seen as a problem in the peace process. There is also the fear and the social withdrawal of the people living within the frontiers of the conflicts (Yaacov, 2010). Fear is an incentive of conflict which adds to the process of tension building resulting to more feuds and conflicts. There are also speculations in the psychological and traumatic experience of war. The aftermaths of the war is still seen as a major factor in the hindrance of peace in the region conflicts. Yaacov (2010) observes that this is due to the fact that many victims of the war are yet to forget the incidences, and so are adamant to adopt a forgiving stand of their former adversaries. This therefore continues to heighten the relations of the people at the border leading to greater problems.
Allen Teal (2008).The impact of the Balfour Declaration on the Middle Easthttp://www.helium.com/items/944264-the-impact-of-the-balfour-declaration-on-the-middle-east
Yaacov, B.T., (2010).Barriers to Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, The Hay Elyachar. Retrieved from http://www.jiis.org/.upload/barries-eng-summary.pdf
