| |

| |

ALL HOT NEWS

Stock Exchange | Weather | Readers' Choice | Reader's Voice | Editorial Cartoon | Advertisement

TURKCE HABERLER

Prime

International

Economy

National

Politics

Sports

Columnists

Commentary

Interviews

Print Edition

My Family

Showcase

Culture & Society

Turkuaz

Readers' Choice

Contact

About Us

Mesg. to Editor

INTERNATIONAL | 10.26.2005 Wednesday - ISTANBUL 16:38

Debates Flare over 'Shall we Rely on Islamists for Democracy?'
By Ali H. Aslan
Published: Wednesday, October 26, 2005
zaman.com

Daniel Pipes and Marc Gerecht held a formal discussion about the provocative question of “whether the United States should rely on Islamists”. Zeyno Baran presided over the debate at the Nixon Center, a think-tank organization.
The two speakers have rightist political views, but they disagree on one basic issue. Reuel Marc Gerecht, former member of the Central Intelligence Agency, currently serving as an American Enterprise Institute expert, advocated the idea that democratization efforts should be encouraged at the expense of not giving opportunity to the kinds of groups that the West do not want to see come to power in the Islamic world at the first stage. Dr. Pipes, a Middle East Forum director, was critical of the intense policies on democratization of the region, arguing for a gradual transition in the current climate.

Pipes, advocating his notion that the Islamic world should be exposed to a long-term gradual democratic evolution to be initiated at street level, urged against the possibility of radicals coming to power. Gerecht, on the other hand, was of the opinion that instead of having a position in authority by means of revolution, as was the case in Iran, it would be more preferable for radicals to have “a light-green revolution” as part of the democratization process. In Gerecht’s opinion, the US’ foreign aid can be indexed to the reforms; for example, the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak can be given an extra three or four years and some sanctions can be imposed on Egypt if the reforms are not carried out duly. However, what Pipes suggests is: Give Mubarak an extra 25 years and allow the Washington administration to develop projects on a democratic transformation.

The Kemalist attitude, Gerecht argued, which is focused on using a high-brow-style dictatorship to move toward secularism and subsequently to democracy, cannot be considered as a means to introduce the Middle East to democracy. He further stressed the fact that an attitude of that kind is very popular in the US and has already been tested before; but it received negative response from the Arab world. Since the end of World War II, Arab dictators have become less progressive and less liberal, stated Gerecht, pointing his criticism at the presumption that the Kemalist Evolution will shape the future is only bound to encourage Bin Ladenism.

‘Erdogan and Laden are Islamists, but Sistani is not’

The propagation of democracy will eventually leave the Middle East suffering from many traumas and the region will in the short term be more anti-American, admitted Gerecht, unable to suggest any another solution but to stand there and take it.
Pipes lashed out at the Bush administration for its silence with regard to the participation of HAMAS, an organization that the US considers to be a terror group, in the Palestinian elections. The idea of being a moderate Islamist is impossible to believe, argues Pipes, equating the kind of Islamists that resort to the use of violence with those Islamists that rely on peaceful religious ideologies. Acknowledging the differences between the founder of al-Qaeda Osama Bin Laden and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Pipes still qualify the two leaders as ”Islamists,” while refraining from hinting that the Iraqi Shiite Leader Al al-Sistani is Islamist. He also holds the belief that the Sufi sects will be unable to stand against the political Islamists. In his version of Islam, there is virtually no room for moderate Islam. The two lecturers agreed on the need to back liberals. Despite the fact that Islamists amount to less than one in eight people, the way in which Islamists organize and spend their efforts brings them to power, argued Pipe, using Turkey as an example in this regard. Turkish Islamists make up 15 percent of the total votes; however, the number of votes that the Justice and Development (AK) Party won is twice as much and that and is what brought the AK Party to power, argues Pipes, assuming the possibility that the AK Party could take full control of parliament in the next elections owing to the stipulation regarding the 10 percent threshold.

Washington

Other News in INTERNATIONAL

France Opens Secularism to Debate
Iraq's New Constitution Passed by a Hairsbreadth
UN Gathers for Decision on Syria
Talabani: US is Like a Shell and a Protector for us
Earthquake Survivors in Pakistan Offer Aid to Each Other
Turkey's Veto on G. Cypriots in Progress Draft Report
Talat Asks for Concrete, Comprehensive Solution

ALL NEWS

Copyright© 1995-2004 Feza Newspaper Publishing Co.
Fevzi Cakmak Mah. A. Taner Kislali Cad. No:6 34194 Bahcelievler / ISTANBUL
Phone:+90 (212) 454 1 454 (pbx), e-mail: [email-masked]
This web-site is generated by Zaman Newspaper's Data Processing and Internet Services.