Until the advent of materialism and 19th c. dogma, Western Civilisation was superior to anything Islam had developed. Islam has not aided in the development of the modern world; in fact civilisation has only been created in spite of Islam. Proof of this resides in the 'modern' world and the unending political-economic and spiritual poverty of Muslim states and regions. Squatting on richer civilisations is not 'progress'. Islam is pagan, totalitarian, and irrational.
It will most likely take years to play out. The general Arab revolt is, with the exceptions of those murdered by the state in the act of protesting for freedom, an epochal event. Even if the despotic Pharaohs and the imitators of the early 19th century Egyptian tyrant the Albanian Mohammed Ali, do survive this popular tempest the writing is on the pyramids. The great unknown – the state's military apparati – will not attack the population. The struggle will take years to unfold perhaps, going through fits, starts, regression and progress. But it is clear that the Arab world en masse, wants modernity and plurality – not despotic governance and most likely, not Islamocracy.
For the optimistic amongst us it could be suggested that far from 1917 or 1979, 2011 North Africa probably has more in common with 1641 England. It took the English almost 50 years of conflict and experimentation – not to mention a lot of blood – to configure a three sided quasi-democratic structure with powers residing in the Commons, balanced out by very restrained royal prerogative and a more general and genteel set of rules for the Upper House. This is not to suggest that the English Civil Wars have much in common with the current Arab civil wars, except this: it will take many years and many experiments, and probably cost a lot in human life, before Arab society is reformed and brought into modernity. With the brief and restricted exception of the late 19th colonial rule, North Africa has never experienced any form of plurality or freedom. It is impossible to suppose that one goes from a modern Mohammed Ali, in the form of Mubarak, to a model UN system.
But like the English civil wars, a key issue is one of time and support. The English civil disruption went in many unexpected and unintended directions. This is true of any long-term process of change. One of the fatal mistakes made by the West in 1917 was not properly supporting the openly Liberal Kerensky government. This interim option needed time to set roots and reorient Russia back to the modern world. It was never given the requisite space and peace. The Kerensky government was one of transition and today it is much derided by most conservatives as a flim-flam and flop, but was precisely the lack of material, military and moral support from the West which gave the very small rump named the Big Party or Bolsheviks their opportunity. The Kerensky's had little time in which to impose a new view upon Russia. Their demise was sudden and bloody and not altogether unexpected. In North Africa today the lessons of broad support, working with the natural leaders of this general uprising and issuing firm and very clear messages to the existing governing structures that quasi-pluralist change is coming, is absolutely mandatory.
For there to be decisive change for the better in North Africa, the French and British will need to get involved. Some of the pain and stain of the 1956 Suez canal fiasco, in which the Americans ensured that the French and British had to leave Egypt in humiliation, can be removed. France has a variety of interests in Tunisia and Libya. The British have historical linkages to Egypt of course. Both countries are dependent in some way on the flow of trade through the Suez canal. With America overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan it is clear that the French and British need to be intimately involved in pushing this general uprising further and deeper. Covert support, aid, the movement of naval and land forces into the region, all need to be effected.
The question is this – do we truly wish that the good guys take over, or we will allow the Muslim fanatics to swagger in and create an Iranian styled political theocracy in states such as Tunisia and Egypt? If the West, including weak, divided Europe, does not support pluralism and the popular will which wants reform, the answer is clear. The Muslim fanatics including the Muslim Brotherhood the 1928 progenitor of all modern Islamic fascist groups, will establish yet another Islamic tyranny. That is not an option.
There are certainly good reasons to be either pessimistic or diffident about the outcomes. No one really knows much about the ideological makeup – if any – of such a vast range of protestors. What do they want in toto? How will their countries be restructured? Who will be the new Leviathan to contain the chaos? These sentiments are certainly valid. But pluralism has to start somewhere. I see no reason why the Tunisian-Egyptian uprisings and the general will of the populations in those countries should not be supported by every means possible. The same was true of Iran during the 2009 uprising against the Mullocrats. Of course the dangers to Copts and Israel, if Egypt becomes Islamified are obvious enough, not to mention the closing of the Suez canal and oil exports to Europe. But it is equally obvious that despotic tyrants such as Mubarak must eventually fail or fall. This presents an opportunity for real Arab and Muslim moderates and pluralist-secularists.
There is also this fact. Exogenous change of ossified cultures is necessary as well. The Bush Doctrine derided by the meek and clever as yet more American imperialism, is of course the prerequisite for change. Being in Iraq and Afghanistan and showing that we will not leave until some semblance of normal quasi-representational governance and pluralism is enacted, must embolden those who desire a North African renaissance. If need be we should work with whatever leadership emerges out of the protests and pledge military and commercial support to effect a removal of odious Pharaohs, and anachronistic autocracies, with systems mutable to the country in question, which defend the individual and extol natural and human law rights.
This then is the true face of Islamic moderation. We see it in the excited Arab faces in Cairo and Tunis. We can see it on the placards demanding an end to arbitary, jack-boot rule. We can view it in the videos sent on Facebook and the Web. We have a historic opportunity which will take years to unfold, to bring part of Islam and some 75 million Arabs into the modern world. This is fantastic!