Beyond the Clash of Civilizations:
The Global Importance of Illiberal Moderates
(An online resource collection)
What follows is a list of articles, op-eds, reviews and essays by Amitai Etzioni on the subject of 'illiberal moderates'.
Please send your comments and questions to comnet@gwu.edu.
(For most comprehensive treatment of the subject, see "key texts" at bottom of this page)
NEW ARTICLE:
Religion and Social Order; filling in the gap when autocrats fall
(Published in the Hoover Institute's Policy Review, April and May, 2008)
What do russia, China, Afghanistan, and Iraq have in common? In nations where an authoritarian regime has collapsed, liberation is typically followed by explosive increases in anti-social behavior. This fact, which holds irrespective of whether the regime was militantly secular or theocratic; communist or Islamic, is rarely discussed in the Western media or during political give and take on “regime change” and related subjects. Some presume that these destructive behaviors will go away on their own, that the disturbed condition of society following liberation will correct itself. Others dismiss these pains of transformation as simply a price a society must pay for gaining liberty.
Explosive increases in anti-social behavior (details follow) do not naturally subside by themselves. Such behavior has been at a high level for years in many liberated and failing states (e.g., more than 15 years in Russia). After surveying some statistics and trends in several newly liberated societies, I confront the question of how such conduct can be curbed. Enhanced law enforcement may do so initially, but, in the longer run, a rather different kind of authority must become the major source of social order if it is to be considered legitimate, which, in turn, is essential for sustained stability. Religion (in its moderate, nonviolent expressions), I will show, is a major source of such authority. Several assumptions found in both political as well as popular discourse obstruct the recognition of this basic but crucial fact: the extensive focus on extremist expressions of religion; the tendency to view religions monolithically; and a tendency to treat the need to export the separation of state and religion as an equal priority with establishing peace and security. The recognition of religion’s role as a major source for stability points the way towards a new approach to U.S. policy in newly liberated societies.
To continue reading, click here.
NEW BOOK REVIEW:
Another Illiberal Moderate Muslim Leader
In the Arab Center: The Promise of Moderation (Yale University Press, 2008) Marwan Muasher, Jordan’s first ambassador to Israel, gives a rare behind the scenes look at the Middle East peace process from the perspective of an Arab insider. Muasher makes a strong case that the prospect of peace hinges on the rise or fall of a credible moderate “Arab Center.” In his definition of this Arab Center, Muasher does not include on the face of it a commitment to the full plethora of human rights, nor to a democratic polity. For Muasher, and for us as well, the Arab Center disavows violence and wants peace, regardless of whether or not it is prepared to fully embrace all the norms of Western liberal society. Perhaps even more importantly, Muasher shows his Western audience that such a center exists and has been behind some of the major successes over the last 20 years. Muasher finds one of the chief reasons for the failures of recent years to be the West’s inability to recognize the importance of this “Arab Center” and to effectively promote its crucial efforts. He writes that “without the active support of the United States—in deeds, not just words—the center will soon be overwhelmed by radicalism.” This means that the United States may well have to work closely with illiberal states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan—“as a partner rather than as a patron.”
Illiberal Moderates and American foreign policy
Let them wear Scarves
(Originally Posted on The Huffington Post, April 10, 2008)
Can you explain to me why thoughtful people, including several renowned public intellectuals, oppose the right of women to choose to wear headscarves -- on campuses out of all places? The same people, commentators, editors, and other talking heads who strongly hold that a woman has a right to do with her body whatever she pleases -- third trimester abortions, abortions without notifying her husband, piercing everything that sticks out and a lot that does not -- but not to cover her hair with a piece of cloth.
To continue reading, click here.
(Also see "Let them wear Scarves II: A Response")
Who Are Moderate Muslims?
(Originally posted on Talking Points Memo, February 13, 2008)
Joshua Muravchik and Charles P. Szrom address this vital question directly in their article in the February issue of Commentary. The importance of this question is well summarized in a quote they provide from Daniel Pipes: “radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam the solution.” That is, it is wrong to treat all the followers of the Prophet as if they were terrorists or their supporters (the way Samuel Huntington and Sir Bernard Lewis do); it is equally mistaken to view Islam as a religion of peace, which is sometimes “hijacked” by terrorist to justify their act (as President Bush pronounced). It is an empirical fact of considerable ethical and political import that Muslims—like followers of all other major belief systems, religious and secular—differ greatly from one another. Some could make good allies; some, sadly, are unavoidable enemies. The key question is: who is who?
To continue reading, click here.
Turkey’s Misunderstood Moderate Muslims
(Originally posted on The National Interest Online, May 10, 2007)
The constitutional amendment that would lead to direct elections of the Turkish president, replacing the current election by parliament, is in the interest of the United States. This course is best followed despite the fact that direct elections are likely to lead to a head of state who is an observant Muslim.
To continue reading, click here.
Support the AK!
(Originally posted on The Huffington Post July 20, 2007)
Turkey will hold elections on July 22. If I could vote, I would support the Justice and Development Party (AK) despite the fact that it alarms the secularists in Turkey and elsewhere. The reason that the AK deserves all our votes goes well beyond what is about to happen in this one nation. AK is a moderate Muslim party, made up of exactly the kind of Muslims we should be supporting as the best antidote to the extremists.
To continue reading, click here.
Fewer Enemies, More (Potential) Allies
(Originally posted on The Huffington Post September 21, 2007)
I know these lines are going to cost me. At least two dinner invitations that have been previously extended are going to be withdrawn summarily. The Hyper Liberal club of Washington, D.C. may well declare me persona non grata. And the abuse I am taking on the blogosphere may rise at least one more decibel -- not a small feat given its current level. Nevertheless, what is one to do? Truth be told, Karen Hughes, the Public Diplomacy Tsar of the Condi Rice State Department--and member of the Bush administration--aced it: in an op-ed in The Washington Post on September 17, she pointed out that Muslim majorities in numerous Muslim nations (including the larger ones) are rejecting terrorism, suicide bombers and bin Laden. Moreover, recent data show that these ranks are increasing by leaps and bounds.
To continue reading, click here.
Illiberal Moderates: key texts
Illiberal Moderates; an introduction
(short version)
As social analysis suffers from an over-abundance of terms, the introduction of any new term calls for justification. After a few lines concerning matters of definition, we shall see that the term “illiberal moderates” serves to highlight a profound difference in one’s view of the world, points to a major shift in the direction of foreign policy, and speaks volumes as to the question of what makes a good citizen. It serves to show that although large segments of the people of the world, Muslims included, do not favor Western-style liberal democratic regimes, they abhor terrorism and war. It highlights the deep difference between a foreign policy that seeks to rely on military force to democratize nations (“regime change”), one that views all illiberals as a threat to global stability and national security—and a foreign policy that views all those who swear off terrorism and war as at least potential allies, allowing gradual and largely homegrown democratization to follow.
To continue reading, click here.
The Global Importance of Illiberal Moderates
(Published in the Cambridge Review of International Affairs Volume 19, Number 3, September 2006)
In contrast to the claim that the most significant fault line in contemporary global affairs is between the civilisation of the West and all others, this essay argues that the schism between those who advance their values through violence and those who rely on persuasion, both of which are present in all civilisations, is the greatest source of conflict in the post-Cold-War era. Moderates come in many stripes: some are liberal, such as Reform Jews and Social Democrats, while most others are illiberal, including many Muslim religious leaders. All moderates, however, share in common a principled rejection of violence. Polls and reports fiom around the world bear out that a conviction of the value of persuasion over coercion does not depend on faith in democracy or secularism. The West should ally itself with such moderates, no matter how liberal or illiberal their orientation.
To download the article in pdf format, click here.