Below is half of an article appearing in today's NYT about India and
Pakistan that deals with the issues of socio-cultural and religious
expression that ties in nicely, I believe, with the current FW discussion
re: the role of fundamentalism and oppressive regimes in the Middle East.
Friedman wrote recently, as some of you may have noticed, that the
India-Kashmir-Pakistan nuclear threat was averted significantly if not
singly, because the thriving "back room" techie and software industries of
India were threatened by the inconveniences of war so that commercial
practicalities overcame political rivalry. (see India, Pakistan and GE
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/11/opinion/11FRIE.html).
And obviously, education is only one of the most significant avenues to
change context. - Karen
Where Freedom Reigns
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN @
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/14/opinion/14FRIE.html
Excerpt:
"It is for all these reasons that the U.S. is so wrong not to press for
democratization in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Is it an accident that India
has the largest Muslim minority in the world, with plenty of economic
grievances, yet not a single Indian Muslim was found in Al Qaeda? Is it an
accident that the two times India and Pakistan fought full-scale wars, 1965
and 1971, were when Pakistan had military rulers? Is it an accident that
when Pakistan has had free elections, the Islamists have never won more than
6 percent of the vote?
Is it an accident that the richest man in India is an Indian Muslim software
entrepreneur, while the richest man in Pakistan, I will guess, is from one
of the 50 feudal families who have dominated that country since its
independence? Is it an accident that the only place in the Muslim world
where women felt empowered enough to demand equal prayer rights in a mosque
was in the Indian city of Hyderabad? No, all of these were products of
democracy. If Islam is ever to undergo a reformation, as Christianity and
Judaism did, it's only going to happen in a Muslim democracy.
People say Islam is an angry religion. I disagree. It's just that a lot of
Muslims are angry, because they live under repressive regimes, with no rule
of law, where women are not empowered and youth have no voice in their
future. What is a religion but a mirror on your life?
Message from India to the world: Context matters - change the political
context within which Muslims live their lives and you will change a lot."
Keith wrote:
Hi Lawry,
On this bright and sunny morning I'll return to the tail-end of your
posting (without re-naming the thread this time!) because it contains a
couple of very important points.
1.
According to Prof Bernard Lewis ("What went wrong?"), the principal enemy
of fundamentalist Islam in most countries is *not* other religions,
zionism, communism or even western imperialism(!) but secularism itself and
its associated schools and universities. I found this difficult to believe,
but thinking about the direction in which fundamentalist Christianity
appears to be rapidly heading in western countries (with its denial of
scientific facts in biology, for example) then I won't argue with one of
the world's authorities on Islam.
Wahhabism must therefore share considerable blame for the economic decline
of Saudi Arabia in that its type of religious education, which dominates
the vast majority of schools (except presumably of the private schools for
the rich in Riyadh) excludes any form of practical education and, in fact,
produces a state of mind quite early in a boy's life that causes him to
abjure any sort of technical education even if it were available later.
(Therefore all work in private non-oil industry and the retail trade is
carried out by foreignors.) I've mentioned that only 2% of graduates
(themselves a minority of the youth population) are qualified in
engineering and suchlike. Presumably, this has been "allowed" in a sort of
unconscious manner (by the Wahhibist clerics) in order to produce just
enough technically trained Saudis who can supervise their oil industry.
2.
The second important point is that, as you say, all Saudi men (and in
several other oil-rich Gulf states) don't need to work because they receive
an income, health services, etc. from the state. This complete dependency
on the state, negating the need for practical education and the faintest
spark of enterprise, is now a great danger for these countries. It is a
"pure" example of what happens when the welfare state is predominant. In
effect, it is crippling the culture of any such country for at least a
couple of generations to come, even if radical reform were to start taking
place immediately.
(I am not against the idea of the welfare state in principle in the west.
It's a matter of where to draw the line. It is quite clear in all western
countries that the verdict of the last century [from the political left and
right] is that the welfare state has proceeded too far, and that it now
needs to recede somewhat if sufficient enterprise [for economic renewal]
and self-responsibility [for lower crime rates] are to be maintained.)
Keith
(LdB)
<<<<
Generally, the oil-rich countries -- and not just the Arab ones -- have
tended to become dependent on foreign labor, manual and professional. Oil
revenue money is distributed freely, in effect, to nationals of the country,
and they do not have to do any work. So the nationals become dependent on
the foriegn workers, and fail to develop as a work force of their own. This
is the reality behind many of the symptoms you point to. This is a very hard
nut to crack. Saudi over-spending has left them in debt, and so this pattern
is being severely challenged -- and for simple economic reasons and not
religious ones. Will Saudi Arabia and the others, find a way, despite their
wealth, to evolve a competent diversified indigenous workforce? This is,
IMHO, the number one issue before them. I did a detailed study (including a
large public opinion survey) several years ago of this stuation in one such
country (not SA) and was impressed by how hard it was going to be.
>>>>
