Democracy is Irrelevant
Within every single discussion on the democratization of the Muslim world is the assumed premise that the Muslim world has “failed” or is “failing” due to its ideological state. The concept of failure, underdevelopment, or whatever pejorative term one chooses to use, is a relative term that is contrasted with the “success” of the West which is characterized as “rational,” “modern,” or “powerful.” Given that the underlying objective of Islam is not the acquisition of the material world, but beholding the Vision of God in this life and the next, using such relative terms is rather irrelevant. Instead of looking at a particular ideology within a Muslim state as the cause of its “success” or “failure”, it would be more accurate to scrutinize the history of all countries within the past few hundred years. What caused the “failure” of the Muslim world? When did this “failure” occur? What caused the “success” of the Western world? When did this “success” occur?
The rise of the dominance of Western civilization has absolutely nothing to do with reason or democracy or freedom. It has to do with economics, religion, politics, or downright dumb luck. The industrial revolution occurred in England and then spread to France, America and the rest of the Western world. It had to do with their economic system, not with their ideology. England was not a democracy when the industrial revolution occurred. The industrialization of Western economies is what enabled them to produce the economic wealth and technological prowess the resulted in a military edge. It is the military edge which gave the West the ability to dominate global affairs, not necessarily its ideology. Had the Nazis won World War II, the talk of the town would not be between the compatibility between Islam and Democracy, but between Islam and Fascism and undoubtedly, some deluded intellectuals within our communities would (and have) advocated for such an integration. If the Soviet Union had won the Cold War and America was defeated, the talk of the town would be about whether Islam is compatible with Communism, and some Muslims (even today), make such an argument. The discourse on democratization of the Muslim world must be placed within the proper context. It requires a study of history. When people ask “Is Islam compatible with Democracy?” why not expand the scope of the discussion to “Is Islam compatible to Nazism? Fascism? Communism? Mercantilism? Feudalism? or Zen Buddhism?” The question exists within a historical framework in which the current holder of power in the West happens to be a secular liberal democratic capitalist state that has a very strong vested interest in Muslim countries conforming to its hegemonic program. Its interest in democratization, as has and will be shown on this blog, has less to do with a sincere effort to promote the well being of Muslims and more to do with justifying an aggressive foreign and domestic policy that enables this hyperpower to destroy alternative systems that do not conform with its interests.
So again, returning to the question: When and why did the West become dominant?
In my opinion, it was when the West was able to military defeat the competing global contenders on the battlefield and this could not have been possible without the industrial revolution which gave it a technological edge over other world powers. The reason that the industrial revolution occurred in England had more to do with the fact that it had attained control of the world’s most lucrative markets through colonialism than its state ideology. The industrial revolution is what enabled European countries to develop heavy technologies which they then utilized on the battlefield. The countries that first experienced the industrial revolution were not really democracies. They were either Monarchies or Republics with strong anti-majoritarian tendencies and even stronger indifference to racial, gender, and other minorities. The fact that the industrial revolution developed in both republican and monarchical forms of government illustrates that it had less to do with political ideology and more to do with economic policies, namely, capitalism. It is of no surprise that the countries that had strong control over global trade experienced the industrial revolution. This control was not acquired by “free trade” but through brute force and colonization.
Colonialism itself was caused by religious ferver and economic needs. Both the Portuguese and Spanish “reconquistas†had a very strong connection with Crusader brotherhoods and the Catholic church. The methodology used in annihilating Islamic rule and Muslims in Spain was the same methodology used against Africans and Native Americans in the New World. Democracy and freedom was not the cause of the rise of Western civilization, it was the opposite: it was brutality and ruthlessness.
By placing the development of the modern world within its proper context, one begins to understand how it operates today. One understands that no amount of democratization will alleviate the problem of the Palestinian people because the cause of the problem was not a political ideology, but a decision by the French and the British following World War I to dismantle the Ottoman Empire and replace it with weak and unstable fabricated countries in order to enable France and Britain to obtain access to the world’s oil supply. Democratization isn’t working very well for Muslim minorities in the West, especially in Europe, so why should it be presumed that it will work any where else in the mainland of the Ummah?
Before discussing democratization, we should first discuss the significance of the discussion itself and place it within its proper context.
Sphere: Related ContentPublished December 19, 2007 . Filed under: Critical Democracy Studies
Posts
The reason that the industrial revolution occurred in England had more to do with the fact that it had attained control of the world’s most lucrative markets through colonialism than its state ideology.
Are you talking about Caribbean sugar plantations here? These were the only really lucrative colonies Britain had when the Industrial Revolution was beginning (it also had settler colonies in North America, plus a few outposts in India, but these were of little value to the British state).
Other reasons hindering Muslim industrialization were:
* Few rivers (only the Tigris and Nile suitable for transportation, and none fast enough for power generation - this was the main power source for pre-steam Western industry)
* No forests (for charcoal) or coalfields
* Few metallic resources (some in Anatolia, but very expensive to extract)
* Sparse population (the entire Ottoman Empire at its height had a similar population to France)
* Arid climate (leading to fragile ecology)
* Location, location, location (aka “the Mongol menace”)
* Terrain (mountains and deserts, coupled with low population density made it impossible for the Ottoman to run railways without heavy state subsidy).
Another factor is that the medieval West had a feudal system with a warrior aristocracy (who were naturally predisposed to become a future capitalist class - the same was true of the Japanese Samurai), while Muslim lands tended to form their armies from peasants, barbarian mercenaries or even slaves (in the case of Mamluk Egypt).
Many Muslim states fell victim to their own mercenaries, including the Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus (toppled by Persian cavalry), the Caliphate of Córdoba (torn apart by its Berber mercenaries) and the Ayyubid sultanate.
Democracy and freedom was not the cause of the rise of Western civilization, it was the opposite: it was brutality and ruthlessness.
Are you also talking about how Western plutocrats deliberately forced their own people into destitution by stealing their land (so they could be exploited as factory labour), while Muslim countries maintained medieval-style peasantry?
December 19, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
George,
Excellent comments. I suppose I should have been more specific by how colonialism assisted the industrial revolution.
First, it provided the host country with access to raw materials.
Second, it alleviated enough pressure upon the labor to be redirected to the development of other industries.
Third, it provided a global market of exchange which enabled the mother country to sell its products.
I think you are absolutely correct in scrutinizing the monetary and fiscal policies of the Ottomans. It seems that the Ottoman economic policy was based upon constant warfare. Its distribution of land was closely tied to its military system. When the Ottomans faltered on the battlefield, the Sultanate responded by increasing taxes, which had a negative affect on generating capital. The geographical limitations of the Ottomans (lack of timber, rivers, etc) was definitely a factor in their inability to industrialize. In terms of mercenaries, the Janissaries created their own problems for the Ottoman state and began rebelling frequently, draining economic and political resources.
In terms of Western brutality, I was referring more to slavery and genocide. Although it is true that Muslim states had their fair share of brutality as well.
December 19, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
I also think that a lot of economic innovations in banking (interest, insurance), corporate law, and accounting methods had to do with the industrial revolution.
December 19, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
Also, regarding the sugar plantations, if I’m not mistaken, the inventor of the steam engine had to go to one such plantation in order to get the capital for his invention since he couldn’t procure loans from England due to the dire financial situation of the country at the time.
December 19, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
First, it provided the host country with access to raw materials.
How? I thought that the crucial raw materials for industrialization (timber, coal, iron ore) came from the Western lands themselves.
Given the limitations of transport at the time, only tropical products unobtainable in Europe were imported from the colonies (such as spices and sugar).
Or are you actually talking about the discovery of the potato (which didn’t really require colonial conquest, just contact which could be peaceful), which allowed Northern Europe to surge ahead of the Mediterranean lands?
Second, it alleviated enough pressure upon the labor to be redirected to the development of other industries.
Howso? Wouldn’t colonies to tend to drain population away from the mother country?
In terms of Western brutality, I was referring more to slavery and genocide.
Agree with you re Atlantic slavery, but how did Europe (as opposed to “Europeans in the New World”) benefit from the Amerindian genocide?
December 19, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
1. The industrial revolution began in the textile industry. The textile industry derived the majority of its raw materials from its colonies (indigo, cotton) came from both America and the India. Also, England used up most of its forest by the early 1700s and had to get them from other sources, such as Eastern Europe. You are correct though, I’m not certain how much of the materials were sent from the American colonies to England. I also believe the New England colonies had a plethora of iron works, but I’m not sure how much iron was shipped to England. Nonetheless, iron from America was a part of the transatlantic slave trade, so I’m assuming that some of the iron from America came to England, although I’m not sure how much of it.
2. I was referring more to the division of labor that resulted in a change in the mode of production. In addition the enclosure movement, the colonies’ were able to provide basic foodstuffs that freed up labor back in the mother country to work towards other pursuits.
3. Europe benefited directly by (a) acquiring precious metals such as gold and silver that became the basis for its international system of finance, (b) using the land utilized by the Native Americans to produce goods that were sold to the mother country.
Excellent questions and comments.
December 19, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
I’m gonna have to re-read “Guns, Germs, and Steel” when I get the chance.
December 19, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
Also, you seem to have a lot of background on history, colonialism, and economics. Do you have a blog? I’d love to add you to my blogroll.
:)
December 19, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
that was an interesting post, but i think both of you guys are focusing too much on the material causes of the industrial revolution in europe and not enough on the revolution in science that allowed it to happen. Without the enlightenment, all the fast rivers and coal in the world wouldnt have put astronauts on the moon. I think modern democracy was built at the same time and often by the same people
December 19, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
Which sciences or scientists in particular do you think were instrumental towards the formation of the industrial revolution?
December 19, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
How would you respond to the claim (made by Imad A. Ahmad in his interview with Reason magazine) that Muslims did invent the scientific method, but couldn’t progress to an industrial revolution because you can’t fund blue-sky research without interest-based finance?
December 26, 2007 @ 9:15 am
I’m reading “The Great Divergence” by Kenneth Pomeranz and he minimizes the role of the scientific method in the industrial revolution. In terms of interest-based finance, see my other post that seems to indicate that the Ottoman Empire did have interest-based financing, although it was through religious endowments and not banking institutions, which is supremely ironic if not totally forbidden.
I’m still researching this point though.
December 27, 2007 @ 4:42 pm