Democracy is not always the best form of government

The end of the Cold War ushered a new political era in the world – that of the liberal political order. While this movement began in Eastern Europe, it quickly spread, in part, to every continent. The result was that it ended up leading to a situation where Western liberal democratic ideals were adopted, at least in part. A consequence was that the United States, and its liberal democratic allies, took it upon themselves to ensure that the whole world became a part of the democratic order. They sought to make sure that those countries that had previously been dictatorships ended up adopting democratic systems of government.

One of the most important events to take place in the twenty first century is the American invasion of Iraq under the pretext that it had weapons of mass destruction. The result was that a relatively stable government under Saddam Hussein that had been in power for decades was overthrown. Later evidence showed that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction, and in fact, had ended its chemical and biological weapons programs after the end of the First Gulf War. Since the overthrow of Hussein, Iraq has never known peace because it has not only faced considerable sectarian government, but it has also had to endure an American occupation, and the rise of terrorism. Under Hussein, such groups as al Qaeda had no way of getting into the country because of the powerful security apparatus that had been in place. However, with the overthrow of the secular Baathist regime, the situation changed with first the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq, and its later incarnation, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Iraq has since then been mired in conflict with the country being effectively divided into Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish regions; showing that Iraq as a nation might be doomed.

Another instance of an attempt to bring about democracy that has turned sour is the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Despite being an autocrat, Gaddafi had been at the helm of Libya for over forty years, and during this time, he had ensured that the country’s oil wealth was used for its development. Libya had risen from being one of the poorest countries in Africa to one of its most prosperous with its people having a high standard of living that people in some Western countries would have envied. However, the events that are called the Arab Spring took place and in Libya, the rebellion was based in the city of Benghazi. Gaddafi’s swift attempt to crush a rebellion that had the potential of destabilizing the whole of Libya was met with Western condemnation and active action, through NATO, to overthrow him. The success of the NATO operation created a power vacuum that has yet to be filled because since Gaddafi’s death, Libya has essentially been a failed state. It is divided between two main factions based in Tripoli and Tobruk, in addition to the presence of ISIS and largely autonomous tribal entities that have ensured the continued conflict in the country.

The promotion of Western liberal ideals had a direct influence on the development of the Arab Spring and the destabilization of Egypt, formerly one of the most successful states in the MENA region. Hosni Mubarak, the long-time Egyptian president who had been in power for three decades and had been a force of stability in the country ended up being forced to step down. He was replaced by Mohamed Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood candidate who actively sought to make sure that Egypt became an Islamic state. This highly divisive figure was overthrown one year later by the military under Fatah el Sisi. El Sisi, the current president, has returned Egypt to a semblance of stability despite being accused of repression. However, by the time he took power, the damage - following the chaos that had taken place in the aftermath of the fall of Mubarak in the form of continuous protest, and ISIS-affiliated groups taking root in the Sinai Peninsula - had already been done.

Therefore, imposed democracy is not always the best form of government within the various cultures, and countries across the world. Instead, it has to be allowed to evolve on its own because it will more likely gain wide acceptance, and institutions aimed at protecting minorities from oppression will be put in place. Overthrowing autocratic regimes that are a force for stability in many countries is an exercise in futility because it does not take into account the need to promote conditions aimed at bringing about the evolution of egalitarian systems of government.

There is no hope of doing perfect research

Research is the investigation of new and existing knowledge in order to confirm known facts as well as to develop them further whenever possible. It can also be used to establish new facts based either on old knowledge or newly discovered knowledge. The perfect research is very hard to achieve and very rare. However, it is possible to achieve it depending on the task which is being investigated at the time. If the task is direct and based on already established and undisputed facts, then the perfect research is possible. In spite of this, the achievement of the perfect research tends to be marred when researchers come up with different interpretations for an established fact mostly due to bias or in an attempt to make their research conform to mainstream ideas.

Warren, in his book History and the Historians (p.65), when commenting on Leopold Von Ranke’s influence in the writing of historical research states:

I have suggested that Ranke’s writing of History is more complex than our original picture of him as the would-be scientific/impartial prober of archives and historical technician. However, it is clear that Ranke’s fellow historians frequently misunderstood and simplified his position.

The researchers that came after Ranke and considered themselves to be of the Rankean school tended to adapt or distort his research methods to suit their personal agendas or political circumstances. This in my opinion casts doubt on the perfection of their researches.

One would be tempted to agree with the statement that there is no hope of doing perfect research because of the different styles or ways of thinking of different researchers. Researchers, even when working on the same topic or subject, hardly ever come to the same conclusions. Elmes, Kantowitz, and Roediger in their book Research Methods in Psychology (p.12), state that questions derive from actual research and it is therefore apparent that even experts do not conduct perfect research. Furthermore, a researcher may be influenced by his ideology or school of thought. If, for example, he were a Marxist historian writing a political history, his work would most likely be very influenced by his ideological stance. Therefore, Marxist and non-Marxist researchers would end up with totally different conclusions to the same problem. The use of secondary sources during research tends to expose the researcher to the prejudices or biases of the authors of the sources which at times are very difficult to view objectively. The researcher ends up being blindly led by the opinions of his sources and this eventually distorts his conclusions leading to an imperfect research.

Moreover, an idea or an opinion which is considered fact today may not necessarily be a fact in the future. I suggest that a perfect research should be able to withstand the test of time and retain its basic truths. This is rarely the case considering that man evolves and opinions change over time. A mere two centuries ago, it was a common belief worldwide that man and all the other creatures on earth were created by a divine being over seven days. The coming of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution changed all that (mostly in academic circles) and it is now considered fact that all creatures evolved from more primitive forms to what they are today. What remains to be seen is whether the theory of evolution will remain a fact tomorrow or whether new research will reveal it to be irrelevant.

It is my belief that the perfect research is possible but this can only be achieved if its conclusions are beyond reproach by the critics within the field in which the research is being conducted. The level of perfection of a research can also be determined based on whether the research is simple or not. If it is simple then the research would be faultless or perfect because the answers to the research question or problem can easily be gotten. For example, if one wanted to assemble a new desktop computer and had no prior knowledge of how to do it correctly, all he would have to do would be to read the user manual that came with the computer and he would get the information instantly. On the other hand, if the United Nations wanted to know whether sanctions would work on a ‘rogue’ state, a research carried out on this would not give a definite answer because it is yet to be proven that sanctions are completely effective.

In conclusion, to achieve a perfect research especially in a field that has no definite result is very difficult and the best a researcher can do is to try to aim for a result that is as close as possible to perfect. The question that arises from the former statement is this; how does the researcher define the ideal or perfect result? I believe that the researcher should have the freedom to choose to the best of his knowledge what he believes to be the ideal. In the end, no opinion or result especially of a new research can be termed perfect simply because there are those who would find it perfect while there are others who would find it otherwise. Not everyone would be satisfied by the results hence the need for new researches in the same areas of study. These researches lead to my belief that there indeed is hope of doing perfect research because this is usually achieved through many trials and errors.

References

Elmes, D.G., Kantowitz, B.H., & Roediger, H.L. (2005). Research Methods in Psychology. Stamford. Cengage Learning.

Warren, J., (1999). History and the Historians. London: Hodder Murray.

The Rise of Nationalism

There are numerous changes that have become a reality in the world today. Among these is the rise of the political right in Western countries, which have for decades been bastions of tolerance and liberalism. The rise of the right is a cause of concern especially considering that Western nations are increasingly focusing inwards; resulting in a threat to the liberal order that has sustained the world for decades. While it is the democratic right of all individuals in the world to choose the government that they feel best protects their interests, it is also important that they also consider their responsibility to others. Thus, the election of a leader like Donald Trump, with his nationalistic agenda, to the most powerful position in the world as President of the United States, puts the established global order at risk. It is, therefore, important that all the people with the ability to exercise their democratic right to ensure that they use it responsibly for the benefit of mankind rather than nationalistic interests.

Historical Injustices Part 2: Kurdistan

The Kurdish Question

The Kurdish Question, on the other hand, is one that is quite complex because people of this ethnic group span four countries namely Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. The Kurds have had a long and illustrious history in the Middle East, with an individual like Salah-ad-Din (Saladin in European history), the sultan of Syria and Egypt who fought against Richard the Lionheart in the Crusades, being of Kurdish origin. Despite this history, however, the Kurds have been victims of some of the worst injustices in recent history.

Because of both European and Middle Eastern imperialism, they have ended up in a precarious position where they do not have a nation-state to call their homeland. Instead, the land that they have occupied historically has become a part of four states. In Turkey, the Kurds have faced considerable repression because of their agitation for independence, with their liberation movement, the PKK, being labeled a terrorist organization.

The failure by the international community to do anything constructive towards ensuring that the Kurdish voice is heard is a sign that it has accepted the status quo and it not willing to bring about a change to the conditions that the Kurds are experiencing. The only country in the Middle East that has seen a considerable improvement in the lives of its Kurdish population is post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. In this country, the Kurds live in an autonomous region, with its own government, and under the nominal authority of the Iraqi government, since the latter does not have the ability to enforce its authority over the region by force.

 In Turkey and Syria, however, the government of Turkey is determined to ensure that a similar situation to Iraq does not occur. Its actions in recent years, especially during the Syrian civil war have been to support those rebel groups in Syria that are against the Kurds. It has also become directly engaged militarily in Syria to ensure that the Kurds do not form their own state that will connect to Iraqi Kurdistan; resulting in greater agitation for independence from the Turkish Kurds.

Unlike the Palestinians, the Kurds have shown considerable determination to establish their own state, and have fought for this right for decades. Their actions during the Syrian civil war has earned them international respect because they have been shown as one of the most effective forces on the ground, in addition to the Syrian government and its allies, capable of effectively fighting, and defeating ISIS. The effectiveness of the Kurdish forces in Syria has ensured that if Turkey attempts to thwart the formation of a Kurdish state in Syria, tentatively named Rojava, it will come at a high cost.

Historical Injustices Part 1: Palestine

In the contemporary world, numerous historical injustices have yet to be comprehensively addressed. These span the entire globe, with a significant number of them happening in non-Western countries. This case, however, will address two of these injustices, namely the Palestinian and the Kurdish Questions, in an attempt to analyze whether seeking justice for them is still feasible. We begin with the Palestinian Question because it is one of the most well-known in the world, with numerous attempts having been made to bring about an amicable solution between the parties involved.

The Palestinian Question

The Palestinian issue has been ongoing since 1948, when Israel was declared a state and a homeland for all the Jews in the world. This state was formed in land long settled by Palestinians and the creation of this state by immigrants from Europe and other parts of the world, was not taken well by the natives of the land. The result has been that since then, Israelis and Palestinians (with their allies) have fought numerous wars and seen considerable tensions that have led to a situation where the Palestinians have lost a majority of their homeland.

A large number of Palestinians have ended up in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, and others have become part of the Palestinian diaspora, especially in Western countries. Through its systematic expansion of its settlements in the occupied lands of Palestine, Israel has been able to disposes the Palestinians without much international criticism. Furthermore, some settlements in the occupied territories have existed for several generations, resulting in a situation where a status quo has been created. It is unlikely that the Jewish settlers will accept to leave homes that they have occupied for many years in order to make way for the formation of a Palestinian state. Any attempt to remove them has the potential of causing considerable conflict with whatever party that is involved. In addition, such a move would not be feasible because of the military superiority of Israel over the various Palestinian factions, which has forced the continued subjugation of Palestinians in their own land to date.

The two-state solution that has been promoted for decades is no longer feasible. This is because of the considerable number of settlements that have been created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian lands. Therefore, in order for lasting peace to be achieved, serious consideration for a one-state solution has to be put on the table. This is because Israel has already established its dominance over the entire land, and while they may have their own government, Palestinians are still essentially subject to Israel.

Instead of continuing to seek a two state solution that will never materialize, it would be better for both parties to make use of the current status quo to further the objective of establishing a single state for both Israelis and Palestinians. All that needs to be done is for Palestinians to be given the same rights and privileges as their Israeli counterparts in exchange for their giving up on their national identity and becoming a part of a multicultural society. Such a move could effectively lead to the end of one of the longest conflicts in modern history.

The Extension of Russian Sanctions is Ill-advised

The Trump administration, through its UN ambassador, recently stated that the eruption of violence in eastern Ukraine was Russia’s fault and that as a result, sanctions are going to remain in place. This action is likely to be considered hostile by Russia especially considering that the crisis in Ukraine can be blamed on both sides of the conflict. Since the election of President Trump, a considerable amount of optimist has developed in Russia that its government is going to work well with the United States to ensure that some of the most critical issues that are of common interest are addressed. The beginning of such a relationship was to be promoted by a lifting of sanctions, leading to the normalization of relations. However, this hope has receded slightly because of the American decision to extend sanctions.

The sanctions regime against Russia fails to put into consideration that it was the Obama administration, rather than Russia, which started the Ukraine crisis. It was American agents, under the direction of undersecretary of state Victoria Nuland, that instigated and facilitated the so-called Maidan Revolution that led to the overthrow of a legitimately and democratically elected president. Ukraine was not an
d has never been a part of what can be considered the traditional American sphere of influence. Instead, it has consistently been a part of the Russian world. Ukraine, specifically the city of Kyiv, is considered the cradle of the Russian civilization and both Russia and Ukraine consider themselves to be descended from Kievan Rus. The close linguistic and familial ties that many Russians and Ukrainians share cannot be underestimated, and this is the reason why the crisis in Ukraine is so tragic.

Ukraine has a long history of being under Russian dominance and there was a time when most of its eastern parts were known Novorossiya, or New Russia. Its close ties to Russia cannot be denied and it is in Russia’s interests to ensure that it has friendly relations with Ukraine. This was the case until the crisis, encouraged by the Obama administration, took place. The Russian reaction to the revolution in Ukraine was highly restrained because even though its ally and democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown and a nationalist government put in his place, Russia did not undertake a full-scale invasion. Russia, instead, undertook two measured actions; the return of Crimea without bloodshed, and the provision of support for the rebels in eastern Ukraine. If, for example, a similar circumstance as the Maidan Revolution had taken place in Mexico with the active support of Russia, the United States would have acted to ensure that Russian influence was pushed back because it would have been considered a threat to its nationalsecurity. The fact that there is indeed a rebellion in eastern Ukraine shows that the Maidan Revolution did not have the support of the entire Ukrainian population. Instead, the revolution brought about a situation where the country ended up being dominated by a government filled by nationalist elements that leaned towards fascism. In addition, if it were truly a genuine government, it would have sought to implement the Minsk Agreements by giving the eastern Ukrainian oblasts the autonomy that it had promised; allowing for their participation in the national elections. Currently, the government in Kyiv is dominated by western Ukrainian nationalists that are hostile to any attempts to end the civil war. The result is that it is in their interest to ensure that a conflict with Russian-backed rebels continues in order for them to have some claim to legitimacy. Therefore, it is wrong for the Trump administration to continue sanctions against Russia, which essentially remains an outside actor, because despite Russian support for the rebels, it is up to the Ukrainians themselves to get to the negotiations table and sort out their own problems.