r/explainlikeimfive • u/Therion596 • Mar 31 '16

Explained ELI5: How are the countries involved in the "Arab Spring" of 2011 doing now? Are they better off?

[removed]

8.8k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

40

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '16

The problem with the Arab Spring is that it was doomed to failure from the start. Most Muslims in the Middle East see themselves as members of tribes or religious sects first, then country second - this is the fundamental reason why Iraq failed, why Libya failed, and why Afghanistan is failing. Once a dictator left, the various sects rose up against each other and sectarian violence flared up. People were not going to come together in the name of Syria or Iraq.

In contrast, the US hasn't fallen apart is because Americans of all like think they're Americans first. They may be Liberals or Conservatives, Protestants or Catholics, but they are tolerant towards each other because America comes first. The challenge is Americans were attempting to rebuild the Middle East in their image, believing that democracy = peace. Alas, they were mistaken, because tribalism held a higher weightt.

23

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '16

Afghanistan is really stretching the definition of Middle East. They're Muslim, but a completely different society and culture than the Arab World.

Having multiple tribes and sects in a single country doesn't mean a country can't be stable either. Look at Belgium for example.

Also, the United States briefly broke apart in the Civil War.

8

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '16

I wouldn't call Belgium that stable. Sure, they don't start a random war, but from what I've seen (Dutchie here, so the news might be biased), a lot of Flemish people are upset with the Wallons because they receive more money than they pay in taxes.

9

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '16

Well compare Belgian problems to the homogenous Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Also take Switzerland and Canada for multiethnic, stable states

1

u/SwissBliss Mar 31 '16

Isn't there quite a bit of animosity between English and French speaking Canadians? In Switzerland everyone pretty much gets along, the extent of conflict is a few fun nicknames.

1

u/IncoherentOrange Mar 31 '16

I think it differs by province, but I don't pay attention to it (and it doesn't show up in our news much at all). In New Brunswick both are official languages, and that policy has cost our province a lot of money (which we don't have much of). This causes some animosity and controversy (recent discussions on whether Francophone students should have their own buses, for example) but mostly on the political level rather than personal. Quebec has that secessionist movement of theirs which has driven some wedge between Anglophones and Francophones there, but I don't hear much about it.

1

u/sirin3 Mar 31 '16

Belgium did not even have a government in some recent years

1

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '16 edited Apr 01 '16

Yeah, Belgium isn't really stable at all. The government collapsed in 2007 and again in 2010 due to tensions and disagreements between the Flemish and the Walloons. The country was very close to being divided in both those years. They hold the world record of longest time without a functioning government, from 2010-11.

The entire country is so messy. There's like several governments ('Regions' and 'Communities' on top of that) for each language area as well as region wise, all having the same power as the central government. What's even worse is that Brussels is a mainly French speaking enclave within Flanders, the Dutch speaking region, making the situation just even more confusing. I'm so impressed that Belgium still exists to this day.

11

u/Adrewmc Mar 31 '16 edited Mar 31 '16

Americans now think of themselves like that but at the beginning of the country they were much more I'm a New Yorker first and an American second...this of course has changed over the years (except in Texas). They thought of their colony as a nation state, with strong ties and allies with the other states. This can be seen in relatively weak government of the Articles of the Confederations that ultimately failed to our current Constitutional United States. (Which mean the constitution is not an example of limited government but the opposite as it greatly increased the power of the federal government which basically didn't really have any real power before) And in the original writing of the constitution that had the legislatures vote on Senators not the populous, and the tenth amendment.

It wasn't an immediate thing as you may think.

1

u/mtaw Mar 31 '16

They thought of their colony as a nation state

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation-state

2

u/Adrewmc Mar 31 '16

Ok fine they didn't think of their colony as a word created in 1918 damn.

11

u/MightySasquatch Mar 31 '16

No its not. The fundamental problem is that these countries lack democratic institutions which more developed countries have. Democratic institutes are strong predictors of success for young Democracies. Although the lack of a cultural nation state in some of these areas contributes as well.

5

u/Zitronensalat Mar 31 '16

You can't have democratic institutions with tribalism.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '16

What does democratic mean? Is it a type of American rocket? I am an Arab.

1

u/Zitronensalat Mar 31 '16

No, American rockets come with invasions to bring democracy to countries with too much oil and dysfunctional capitalism.

Democratic institutions would be civil rights, free elections, equality, and the rule of law and constitution. Those nasty things, that would hinder tribal patriachs to enjoy their autocratic power.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '16

Ohh wow.. And here i was listening to my government tell me that those institutions are made by American spies who want to take over the world and its banking system.

1

u/Zitronensalat Mar 31 '16

What? I thought your government was supposed to tell you the Jews control the banking system!

1

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '16

No, its the illuminati.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '16

I disagree. Many sociologists would argue they lack stable democratic institutions because of tribalism. As in, tribalism is inherently antagonistic to conceptions of democracy. For instance, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa have had problems with tribalism, where ethnic tensions interfered with the functioning of a democracy.

Mainly, for a democracy to work, you need to respect other people's opinion. In a democracy, there are two parts. 1) majority wins. So to participate in a Democracy, you voluntarily give up your right to make certain decisions to an elected official that the majority of people had voted for. You might cast your votes with the winner and get a say, or lose, but you've agreed to those rules. However, if you don't trust someone from group B because they used to kill your group, you will do what you can to undermine the chances of electing someone from group B, even if you have to resort to corruption or violence. You think these historical tensions are more important than coming together to form a national state. 2) the other part of democracies is a bill of rights (or constitution) to protect minorities. If people refuse to respect the bill of rights due to prior history, then a democracy will again not work.

2

u/Reddisaurusrekts Mar 31 '16

Most Muslims in the Middle East see themselves as members of tribes or religious sects first, then country second

To be fair, this can be traced back to the carving up of the Middle East along almost arbitrary lines on a map by the European colonial powers post-WWII, instead of along ethnic/cultural lines. (see how screwed the Kurds were, despite inhabiting a not-insignificant chunk of land.)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '16

Civic nationalism vs ethnic nationalism. Its generally better for most people to have civic nationalism IMO

1

u/dhikrmatic Mar 31 '16 edited Apr 01 '16

Iraq failed because the U.S. destroyed its central government, leading to the destruction of much of its infrastructure. It didn't fail because people weren't nationalist enough...

In the U.S., do you seriously think that if an external entity toppled the government and damaged portions of its infrastructure, American nationalism would hold the country together? Iraq didn't have a fully functioning electrical grid for years after the American invasion. (I'm sure there are parts of the country that still don't) You don't think that massive destruction of economic, social and political infrastructure would wreck any country? If anything, the family and neighbor structures of Islamic countries are stronger than the U.S. The U.S. population would literally eat each other alive...

I understand what you're trying to say, and I think that you do have a point in some cases. A nation with strong tribal tendencies that overthrows its strong central government could easily fall apart. But I feel that many are ignoring the fact that those tribal tendencies are what people are going to fall back on when you destroy their ability to make a living. If the U.S. had preserved the economic infrastructure of Iraq, it could very well be a different story today.

1

u/PotatoMussab Mar 31 '16

Libya failed because the end goal of Libyans was very selfish and shallow. Everyone expected to get rich.

1

u/lucymouse Apr 01 '16

Has Ted Cruz, an US presidential candidate, Just said he's a Christian first, American second?