Charles Hill on 1989 and 2011
A few days ago, I linked to this interview with the great historian of Islam, Bernard Lewis. An excerpt that summarizes Lewis's argument:
“The sort of authoritarian, even dictatorial regimes, that rule most of the countries in the modern Islamic Middle East, are a modern creation,” [Lewis]...notes. “The pre-modern regimes were much more open, much more tolerant.”
But Lewis regards a dash toward Western-style elections, far from representing a solution to the region’s difficulties, as constituting “a dangerous aggravation” of the problem, and fears that radical Islamic movements would be best placed to exploit so misguided a move.
Why is this on my mind again? Because this morning I've been reviewing the notes I took while in Washington earlier this week. The same day I posted a link to the interview with Lewis, I see, I ran into Charles Hill, a former assistant to secretaries of state Kissinger and Shultz, now diplomat-in-residence at Yale. Charlie made a fascinating--and sobering--point, comparing the revolution in the Arab world with the fall of the Soviet Union.
"During the Cold War," Charlie said, "we failed to grasp how completely Communism had eradicated civil society in the Soviet Union." No political parties. No unions. Churches and synagogues constantly harassed. Even groups for little children were subsumed into the Komsomol, a division of the Communist Party. "When Communism collapsed," Charlie said, "there was nothing there--nothing."
Egypt suffered under a stifling autocracy for more than three decades, Tunisia for more than two, Libya for more than four. Conditions of course differ from one to the other--Tunisia has something approximating a large, educated middle class. But each now faces a kind of nullity or vacuum. One option: Anti-western religious parties, already organized and motivated, could sweep in. The other option: the creation of genuinely civil societies. Charlie Hill hopes for the latter, of course. But? Well, here are his words:
Creating civil society is really, really, really difficult.
- Comment (18)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Nov '10
Re: Charles Hill on 1989 and 2011
A Pew Research poll from last year seemed to show that the Egyptian people want an Islamic theocracy, not a democratic republic. That would surely mean a government under the Muslim Brotherhood. Claire Berlinski says she doesn’t trust this poll and will post her reasons sometime. Haven’t seen that yet, though.
Edited on Mar 4, 2011 at 11:14amOct '10
Re: Charles Hill on 1989 and 2011
"Creating civil society is really, really, really difficult."
The communists succeeded, temporarily, to reorganize civil society according to ideological principles foreign to the nature of the constitutions of their respective societies. Kith and kin (the social network based on exteded familial relationships) was the basis of the organic society that made up the core of the former Soviet peoples. They have since reformed their civil society along these lines with a thugocracy similar to the mafia in Sicily as the ruling caste, instead of a land based or ecclesiastical aristocracy.
Culture is the nidus for the formulation of civil society. This is why democracy as we know it in the west will not result from the revolutionary impulse currently holding sway in North African and the Middle East. Their culture (their social constitution) is also organic and heirarchical in nature, and not given to formulating systems of governance based on republican virtues of mutual consent, protection of individual liberties, private property etc.
Jan '11
Re: Charles Hill on 1989 and 2011
As an avid VDH podcast consumer, it has been interesting to relearn how "the western tradition" has been handed down over such a long period of time, originating in the Greek city states. We are the inheritors of a long and proud tradition.
It reminds me of what a plastic surgeon once said to me - you can take a great nose and make it a perfect nose, but you can't take a bad nose and make it perfect in one surgery. Incrementalism is important, and, well, takes time . . . . .
Oct '10
Re: Charles Hill on 1989 and 2011
Erik Larsen: As an avid VDH podcast consumer, it has been interesting to relearn how "the western tradition" has been handed down over such a long period of time, originating in the Greek city states. We are the inheritors of a long and proud tradition.
· Mar 4 at 11:33am
The stream of western civilization has many tributaries. The Greeks were not the headwaters of that stream but the current of their thought continues to be a powerful influence on the flow of western culture.
Sep '10
Re: Charles Hill on 1989 and 2011
The Greeks were not the headwaters of that stream
The Romans themselves acknowledged that they were.
Oct '10
Re: Charles Hill on 1989 and 2011
Pseudodionysius: The Greeks were not the headwaters of that stream
The Romans themselves acknowledged that they were. · Mar 4 at 12:07pm
Of course they would, according to Virgil's Aeneid, they share a common ancestry.
The Hebrews via Christ and Christianity are certainly in the running for that distinction.
Sep '10
Re: Charles Hill on 1989 and 2011
Of course they would, according to Virgil's Aeneid, they share a common ancestry.
That's not what I was getting at. Upper class Roman families hired Greek tutors for a reason.
Jul '10
Re: Charles Hill on 1989 and 2011
Russia had tremendous assets. Vast resources; a highly-educated populace; a modern, if clunky, industrial base; a diversified economy; advanced infrastructure; legal, religious and cultural traditions based upon Western foundations; and access to Western capital.
The Arab states, for the most part, lack most of these and, of course, they are weighed down by the greatest burden of all: Islam.
Russia has not become all that the West and the Russian people might have wished, but if has fared well when one considers alternative scenarios.
The most optimistic outlook for the Arab states would have them ruled by military juntas; failing that, they're going to look more and more like Islam's poster child: Pakistan.
Jul '10
Re: Charles Hill on 1989 and 2011
Pseudodionysius: Of course they would, according to Virgil's Aeneid, they share a common ancestry.
That's not what I was getting at. Upper class Roman families hired Greek tutors for a reason. · Mar 4 at 12:32pm
I always chafe when people say that America is based upon Judeo-Christian foundations. That completely ignores the influences of Greece and Rome.
Oct '10
Re: Charles Hill on 1989 and 2011
Kenneth
Pseudodionysius: Of course they would, according to Virgil's Aeneid, they share a common ancestry.
That's not what I was getting at. Upper class Roman families hired Greek tutors for a reason. · Mar 4 at 12:32pm
I always chafe when people say that America is based upon Judeo-Christian foundations. That completely ignores the influences of Greece and Rome. · Mar 4 at 12:39pm
Western civilization has been influenced by numerous cultural, ethnographic, geological and biological factors, including the philosophy of the Greeks and the theology of the Christians.
Oct '10
Re: Charles Hill on 1989 and 2011
Pseudodionysius: Of course they would, according to Virgil's Aeneid, they share a common ancestry.
That's not what I was getting at. Upper class Roman families hired Greek tutors for a reason. · Mar 4 at 12:32pm
Yes, but look what happened to Roman civilization. My point is that the Greeks, while highly influential, were coterminous with other cultural influences in the history and development of western civilization.
Feb '11
Re: Charles Hill on 1989 and 2011
Kenneth and Good Borean,
Have you ever listened to Prof. Donald Kagan on Academic Earth give his lecture on the tension between the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman traditions in Western civilization? It's fantastic.
http://academicearth.org/courses/introduction-to-ancient-greek-history
Lecture 1 provides this. The rest of the series is equally really good.
Feb '11
Re: Charles Hill on 1989 and 2011
Because creating a civil society de novo is really, really, really hard, what are we doing in the nation building business outside our own nation?
Jun '10
Re: Charles Hill on 1989 and 2011
There was a cross-pollination going on, and, perhaps, the best question to ask is, to what extent were history's Jews and Christians Hellenized/Latinized while they were changing mostly Roman civilization and to a lesser degree Greek civilization. The concept of conscience or the "soul" certainly played a role in establishing the sanctity of the individual in the presence of the collective, but was this a religious or secular conception? Certainly instinctively man tends to individual freedom, but if he is everywhere found in chains, why does he seem freest in Judeo-Christian societies? Or is the last merely a personal prejudice based on a parochial view of the world?
Jul '10
Re: Charles Hill on 1989 and 2011
Hubris, ignorance and naivety.
Jul '10
Re: Charles Hill on 1989 and 2011
Peter Robinson: One option: Anti-western religious parties, already organized and motivated, could sweep in. The other option: the creation of genuinely civil societies. Charlie Hill hopes for the latter, of course. But? Well, here are his words:
It seems to me that plenty of other options exist: different strongmen, continuous civil warfare, fractures along tribal/regional lines, etc.
Oct '10
Re: Charles Hill on 1989 and 2011
Hang On: Kenneth and Good Borean,
Have you ever listened to Prof. Donald Kagan on Academic Earth give his lecture on the tension between the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman traditions in Western civilization? It's fantastic.
http://academicearth.org/courses/introduction-to-ancient-greek-history
Lecture 1 provides this. The rest of the series is equally really good. · Mar 4 at 1:08pm
There is much available in this genre.
Oct '10
Re: Charles Hill on 1989 and 2011
"Creating civil society is really, really, really difficult"
Keeping civil society is also really, really, really difficult.