It’s actually surprising it’s achievable for so long but in the long term doesn’t feel stable given the direction things are headed
As far as stability, I don't know. My view is that Arab democracies are unstable because they will elect Islamists. Dictatorship/monarchy has proven far more stable. Syria is trying to buck the trend; we'll see how it goes.
why does that imply instability?
ennahada (tunisia), pks (indonesia), jui (pakistan) are all examples of islamist parties that have compromised or reached across the aisle at various points just off the top of my head.
besides, isn't the point of democracy to allow people to be led by those who represent their principles? if they are in power, why should the majority expect their elected leaders to compromise those principles?
Would love to read more on this. Naïvely, I shared OP’s view of Islamist parties’ intransigence. (Note to third parties: Islamist != Islamic majority or even Islamic parties, and certainly separate from Arab parties.)
> isn't the point of democracy to allow people to be led by those who represent their principles?
Yes. But nothing says democracies are fundamentally stable. It absolutely follows that intolerant populations can systematically elect intolerant leaders who then cause instability.
Brookings Institute has a series of papers about Islamist movements around the world: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rethinking-political-isla...
which includes both analyses from Western academics as well as responses from members of Islamist parties.
> It absolutely follows that intolerant populations can systematically elect intolerant leaders who then cause instability.
Intolerant of what, and what do you mean by "instability"? If the ideology of the political parties and institutions reflects that of the (vast) majority of the population, why would we expect "instability"?
Democracy can descend into demagoguery; I believe that occurs when the "people" feel like the state has been captured by an elite (oligarchy) that doesn't represent their interests (i.e. interests of the majority), "intolerant" or not - e.g. Gracchi brothers, Hugo Chavez, etc etc.
One reason I'm skeptical of Arab democracy is that Arab nationalism is weak. In the Arab world, Islam and hatred of Israel seem like the most powerful forces. Much stronger than nationalism. Would countries governed by those forces be stable? Would their policies be desirable from the perspective of the rest of the world?
There are Arab democracies that may prove that Islamists can be pragmatic. Tunisia like you said, Iraq, and possibly the new Syrian government. We'll see. The world is always changing.
and secular/socialist/monarchic dictatorships have arguably worse effects on their neighbors and citizens - e.g. Saddam, Assad, Nasser, MBZ in UAE, MBS
I think the broader point is that a democracy is unstable when the electorate just votes for their favourite warlord / cleric, who promptly ends / rigs any further elections.
In the Middle East, there appears to be a pattern of electorates voting for / staging a revolution in favour of Islamists, which either leads to a terrible Islamist regime, or leads to an elite coup, which of course destroys the democracy in the process. Worst case scenario all of this happens at once in different places, and you get a terrible civil war.
Democracy is great, but it requires an electorate that actually wants to sustain and retain a democracy. Those appear to be few and far in between.
that pattern is hardly unique to middle east/islamists though. look at central/south america. guatemala, chile, brazil etc all had democracies overthrown by "elite" coups.
like almost every instance in the middle east, there is actually a common denominator between these coups... resistance to the US-led order magically seems to invite instability.
> resistance to the US-led order magically seems to invite instability
Or perhaps 'resistance' is an awfully popular rallying cry for demagogues who bring instability, and the US is just the hegemon du jour. "It's the US' fault your crops are wilting! And international capital! And immigrants! And, oh, I don't know, the gays, why not. Rise up for El Generalissimo! Enlist your sons in the blood struggle, that will definitely improve things!" /s
Much sexier to be a revolutionary fighting shadowy foreign forces than to actually fix any of your own problems. No, no, tomorrow's problems will be America's fault too.
you said
> Arab democracies are unstable because they will elect Islamists.
whereas my claim is that governments (democracies or not) that run afoul of their local hegemon tend to have a short shelf life. this is not unique to US hegemony.
see: Brezhnev doctrine (USSR), or the canonical example of Athens and Melos from Peloponnesian war
> Rise up for El Generalissimo! Enlist your sons in the blood struggle, that will definitely improve things!" /s Much sexier to be a revolutionary fighting shadowy foreign forces than to actually fix any of your own problems. No, no, tomorrow's problems will be America's fault too.
I'm sorry, you seem triggered by this discussion, it doesn't seem productive to continue on my end.
Realism has more way explanatory power in geopolitics than idealism. Idealist explanations are typically incoherent (e.g. above thread).
I suppose shall have to make do without 101-level instruction in Chomskyian anti-Imperialism, woven through with whataboutism and international conspiracies.
> whereas my claim is that governments (democracies or not) that run afoul of their local hegemon tend to have a short shelf life. this is not unique to US hegemony.
Wow, big if true. Someone let Iran know.
How many trillions of dollars and gallons of blood did the US expend to make Afghanistan non-Taliban, or Vietnam non-Communist? And who rules Afghanistan and Vietnam today? You mention the Brezhnev doctrine, and yet literally not one of these countries is Russian-aligned today. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan failed just as hard as the British and American ones, all at the height of those respective countries' powers. Not very powerful, these alleged hegemons.
My overall point is that the Middle East (and Latin America, etc) has many local issues (e.g. corruption, misgovernance, sectarianism, organised crime), and an unhelpful habit of blaming some ill-defined global hegemony for misfortunes that are readily explicable as the consequences of these local phenomena. The US is no innocent lamb, but it does no service to the people of any of these regions to pretend that another hundred years of anti-Imperialist rhetoric will somehow bring benefits that the previous hundred years did not.
In these countries, this brand of tired anti-Imperialism is a figleaf for authoritarians. In the West, it is masturbatory politics for a certain type of narcissistic Westerner with a saviour complex, who fundamentally believes only Westerners have agency in the world, and everyone else are just motes of dust floating in the West's shadow. It's this confluence that results in absolute travesties like Chomsky supporting the Khmer Rouge, a far greater evil than all the worst allegations against America stacked together.
If you want to help the Middle East, get involved in civil society building efforts that help bridge the gap between sectarian communities; support charitable and poverty relief efforts that are not affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood; get involved in civil rights advocacy on behalf of the oppressed in the Middle East (women, LGBT communities, religious and ethnic minorities, the list goes on); partake in initiatives aimed at tackling corruption, organised crime, etc. Or at the very least encourage and support the people who do these things, rather than regurgitating half-remembered anti-Imperialist tropes from your polsci 101 class, as though that were a contribution of any value whatsoever.
The one thing that will absolutely not help them, at all, is more meandering, false narratives about how they have no agency in the face of shadowy global hegemons, and how should just lie down and wait impassively for some sort of new, more just world to be given to them by their Western betters.
Chomsky never backed the Khmer rouge, he questioned some of the claims and western focus on the Khmer rouge, which was ignoring US culpability. He also never denied that the Khmer rouge were committing atrocities.
Was he wrong? Yes, at least in specific instances. But he was never outright supportive of the Khmer rouge. This is very old propaganda.
Chomsky was about as pro-Khmer Rouge as Tucker Carlson is pro-Russia; he's not out there waving flags and singing patriotic songs for them, but he's sure as hell doing a lot of very useful work "just asking questions" about biolabs in Ukraine / the extent to which the US may have "provoked" the Khmer Rouge to do what it did. If someone wrote equivalent things about the atrocities in Nazi Germany, we would not be mincing words about that person's sympathies. Chomsky ought to be treated with the same intellectual honesty.
Chomsky was a useful idiot for murderous tyrants. And a truly wonderful linguist. Ah, the duality of man.
But you should still not spread misinformation. Also, America _has_ been accused of worse things than the Cambodian genocide (as far as genocides can be compared, but I'm following your lead on comparing atrocities here): take the genocide of the indigenous American population for one.
But you're extrapolating quite a bit here. Could you please 1) provide the reference for this "provoke"-bit, so that we can evaluate it ourselves, and 2) explain exactly what the damning evidence is.
Show me the smoking gun, please.
Thus far we have your claim v. mine. Not sure why an absence of evidence would somehow make you right and me wrong, nor am I sure why I bear any burden of proof when you're the one who's shown up out of nowhere to bandy around accusations of bad faith and demand to be disproven.
For what it's worth, I don't consider your factually-deficient posts to be "misinformation"; I just think you're making a good faith error out of an unfamiliarity with the sum of Chomsky's work. You could read more of him if you think that would be of merit, though I don't consider a lot of the time I spent reading his political works time well spent, so make of that what you will. :)
Read his linguistics works instead! This would be a much better world if all the people who read Chomsky's politics had read his linguistics instead.
"The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges"
If by "factually deficient" you mean false, then that is the definition of misinformation. Which is of course separate from disinformation, which is when you do that purposefully.
Considering the nuanced nature of the claim - a conclusion as to his sympathies borne of deep familiarly with his work - there's no reason for me to think you wouldn't find additional reasons to quibble over any specific citations and passages. I have no evidence that you're a good faith interlocutor, so I really see no reason to expend that effort. If you're actually interested, I do encourage you to read the original works. (If it wakes you up to Chomsky's sympathies and immunises you against some of his bad politics, perhaps not a total waste of time.)
Therefore, without further clarification, I must assume that when you say "Chomsky backed the Khmer rouge", this is what you meant.
The burden of proof is on you. And if you are (as you say) so familiar with Chomsky's work, and if his sympathies with the Khmer rouge are "pretty clear", you should have no issue actually producing the "pretty clear" statements to this effect.
If anyone is asking someone else to do their homework for them, it's you. You made the claim, not me.
"Therefore, without further clarification, I must assume" (what a mouthful!) that you are an argumentative teen with a "debate me bro" mindset.
One of the key problems of online exchange is that it is impossible to synthetise expertise without someone much less knowledgeable driving by, and demanding ELI5 level proof. They believe that they must be capable of reaching the same conclusion as someone who has spent years on the topic, and they must get it now, and they firmly believe that the onus is on the expert to give it to them (for some reason). The implication being that years of familiarity are irrelevant unless you replace your nuanced point with "pan in the face"-level direct evidence, such as would satisfy the "debate me bro" teenager who is demanding it. All expertise is invalid except that which an inexperienced Redditor can see with his own eyes (an obvious parallel exists here to conspiracists who "do their own research").
Consider that it would be relatively trivial for me to just type "Chomsky khmer rouge" into Google and throw some random refs at you, and that there may be some reason I haven't done so.
It is both (a) pointless - in that I truly do not care one jot if I have provided a satisfying level of evidence to you (and what about the next Redditor that comes along? and the next one? are we to be stuck at this level of discourse forever?), and (b) fairly deleterious to discussion that happens at a level more sophisticated than first principles.
Consider the implications for the progress of society of being forever stuck in ELI5 performative debate for the benefit of random lay people. The FOX News-ification of all of academia. The reduction of all human knowledge to that which is digestible to the average Redditor.
I note also your reference to right-wing propaganda, etc. From an academic perspective, this is just such an irrelevance. I am not a Marxist, for example, but I find Marxism to offer an occasionally useful lens on economic power relations. If you're still indulging in partisan "he says she says", then I respectfully do not think we're operating at the same level on this topic. That's not to diminish your intellect or knowledge in other fields. I'm sure there are many other skills you have that I do not.
You are entirely free to walk away completely confident you're right and I'm wrong, and this is something that will never matter to me in any way for the rest of my life (I will forget that this exchange ever happened within days). I suppose I engage only in the (probably vain) hope that I might plant a seed in you or someone reading this. I'd consider you going back to read Chomsky a win here, even if I disagree with a lot of his conclusions, because at least there's more to him than this "debate me bro" hellscape.
I won't reply again - this is not a good use of my time. Up to you whether you choose to interpret that as a win (epic Redditor destroys boring academic with facts and logic!) or an opportunity for contemplation.
I'm asking for one (1) source where he is "pretty clear" about his Khmer rouge sympathies. You are writing up a storm to make that seem like an unreasonable thing.
And you would start this exercise by googling "chomsky khmer rouge"? Implying you have no mental model about what Chomsky said and when. Strange, considering your posturing about your political science degree and familiarity with Chomsky's work.
I must assume you have a PhD (or that you're working towards one), because you call yourself an academic. Any decent researcher would be able to identify sources for something they claim to be an expert on. At least, that is my experience, having worked in academia for a while. But you can't tell me what Chomsky said or where, even in broad terms?
All of the Gulf monarchies as well as Jordan are essentially western creations that were created as states mostly by the British and then heavily reinforced by the US from the 70s onwards