In the previous issue of Time magazine (April 16, 2012; "Rethinking Heaven" on the cover) commentator Fareed Zakaria ponders the question, "Why does it seem that democracy has such a hard time taking root in the Arab world?"
For help, Zakaria turns to a recent academic paper examining the "democratic deficit" in the Middle East. The paper, written by Harvard economist Eric Chaney, argues that this deficit corresponds with the areas conquered by the Arab armies after the Prophet Muhammad's death. The connection is never identified, by either Zakaria or Chaney - though the usual suspects of religion and culture are ruled out.
Zakaria, writing for a general audience, states that "there was something in the political development of the Arab imperial system that seemed to poison the ground." Chaney, writing for an academic audience, talks about "historical control structures" and the region's "unique political equilibrium." In other words, both men chalk it up to the following: Something.
What is avoided in both Chaney's paper and Zakaria's article is Western involvement. In Chaney's paper, the Ottoman Empire is mentioned once in passing, and there is a brief, abstract reference to "colonizers." But the colonizers (i.e., Britain and France), for Chaney, merely play a bit part. They simply perpetuated the problems that were already there.
Chaney then quotes esteemed Princeton historian Bernard Lewis, who abstracts the issue even further by mentioning the role of "modernization" in the region's history - the term being code for what the "colonizers" did (see my Mar. 12 cover-photo comment). Lewis, it should be noted, made a career of de-emphasizing Western intervention in the Middle East many decades ago.
I bring up Zakaria's article as a good example of dishonest scholarship. In addition, his kind is more dangerous. As I mentioned in my Feb. 20 blog entry, Zakaria isn't Rush Limbaugh and he isn't Ann Coulter. He is a polished intellectual citing the work of a fellow Ivy League academic. Zakaria's article is measured and rational; the Chaney paper features statistical analysis, charts, tables, calculations - the works. No rants or bluster to be found in either.
What is being delivered, however - despite the erudition and refinement - is the same spurious analysis that misleads and deludes Americans, and in turn allows the creation of conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan. What Zakaria and Chaney are in fact helping to create is a democratic deficit.
Zakaria:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2111248,00.html
Chaney:http://www.brookings.edu/economics/bpea/Latest-Conference/chaney.aspx
