Lord Yang Jiahua wrote:Anyway, ill back check that statement,
Where's the most unrest besides Libya been Happening, i'm assuming Bahrain?
My limited knowledge tells me its once again a Sunni v Shiite, Islamic relgiosity that is causing clashes in country.
There is also Yemen.
As for the cause of the Bahraini clash, I don't entirely agree. While religion is the trait that separates the ruling sunni class with the dominated shia population, the actual uproar has more to do with class struggles than a religious war, it just so happens that the majority of the lower class are shiites. This is backed by the fact that several union leaders sided with the protesters even though they were sunnis.
We roughly see the same scenario in most arab nations. Its not so much about faith than economics and the death of the classic political paradigm of the arab world. For decades, the political landscape of the region was filled with dictatorial secular governments who justified their own existence with a short but convincing list of arguments:
1- Arab nations are not ready for democracy
2- The only real opposition to their regimes where islamic groups that where inherently more dangerous than they were
3- If maintained in power, those regimes would provide an effective mean to contain islamic fundamentalism
4- They could use their dictatorial powers to forcefully developt the region in ways that regular democracy could not (basically on the model of Mustapha Kemal Atatürk)
But something destroyed those arguments.
Argument number four is the easiest one to destroy. The vast natural riches of those countries proved to be the undoing of the development process of the region. It allowed those dictatorship to enjoy important revenues without ever having to build the basis to a modern economy, which would have forced them to give economical rights to their people, which would have led to political rights after the birth of a thriving middle-class.
Argument number three is also an obvious fallacy. Not only did those regimes failed to contain islamic fundamentalism, but they actually are responsible for much of the movements development. Indeed, when they started to use repression on all oppositions forces (including the pro-democracy advocates), the only center of dissent that could still effectively function was the mosques. This fact became terribly obvious to us in the west when terrorist organizations decided to make that ideological shift where they decided to place more importance on the faraway enemy (western countries) than the close enemy (the dictatorial regimes supported by the west).
Argument number two is the most insulting of all. After all, a regime that bans oppositions groups, no matter how moderate they are, cannot really be surprised when the only people who still fight openly against him are willing to fight him. Those who are not willing to use violence can do nothing but hide, or wait for the chance to organise a manifestation of public protest... in a society where repression rules...
Now, it remains to the arab nations to demonstrate that the argument number one was flawed.
To be stupid, and selfish, and to have good health are the three requirements for happiness; though if stupidity is lacking, the others are useless.
Gustave Flaubert