What makes these regimes legitimate in the international arena is the possibility that one day “the threat of Islam” may replace these oppressive regimes. The phenomenon that the legality of oppressive regimes is based on the probable, potential, and fictitious threats of oppression is an ironic fact of contemporary time. I think the priorities of the international system and strategic approach regarding the region should also be added to this fact.
The way son Abdullah became the king of Jordan after the death of his father King Hussein shows a concrete example of who really desired democracy and liberty in and for the region. As is known, for almost 30 years King Hussein’s brother Prince Hassan was considered the heir to the throne. Prince Hassan is an intellectual person who is known for his idea that democratic priorities joint with Islam would make a proper environment for a participative political culture and he thought that if it happened, then it would lead to initiative in the Middle East. He reached out to social groups that were ostracized from the system in Jordan and he believed that a common formula for social cohesion could be developed with them.
While everybody expected that Prince Hassan was going to come to the fore after the death of King Hussein, there was an abrupt development and King Abdullah came to the fore. If Prince Hassan, who had been known as heir apparent for a long time, had come to the lead, maybe there would be a hope for a real change. However, “the great will” that raised King Hussein from his deathbed, brought him to the Capital Amman, and made him enthrone his son didn’t want such a change.
The extent and the depth of this will’s profound impact on the political system of the Middle East haven’t become apparent yet. On the one hand, the strategic approach of this determinant will and the status quo that it projected for the region drags the people of the Middle East into a deep state of schizophrenia and on the other hand, it pushes them outside of the realm of history.
Whether in terms of “global modernization” that is lead by America or in terms of “traditional modernization” still defended by Europe, the three major factors that are required for both are “democracy, human rights and free market economy.” In the case that existing political regimes in the Middle East are criticized, the main criteria of this criticism are these three factors. But whenever steps are taken in the Middle East to implement changes towards these ends, these attempts are thwarted, primarily by Europe and America, which have political, military and economic plans in the region.
This isn’t only an illogical paradox or a moral hypocrisy but also a direct expression of the deep distrust towards the people of the region due to energy sources and the geostrategic situation of the region. The West (Europe and the USA) apparently didn’t want these assets that it offered to the entire world by means of international contracts and obligatory texts about human rights to be controlled by the initiative of civil and social powers in the Middle East. It considered that such a development would create a threat in terms of their interests. It has been so at least so far.
Here is the question: In spite of so many social explosions, is the Middle East still under the tight control of the great will? What do the powers that didn’t consider even Prince Hassan to be trustworthy think of the administrative changes in which the Muslim Brotherhood is actively taking part? One of the most stereotypical of these regimes is surely the Baath regime. So far the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) has been able to protect its existence in the government.
Syria was headed by Talat Pasha and Iraq was headed by Enver Pasha, I wonder if the supporters of the CUP will leave with the departure of Saddam Hussein and former Syrian President Hafiz Assad. Or just as it happened in our country, will the rulers change but the basics of the regime remain the same?
Will apparent legal oligarchical dictatorships and autocratic structures collapse and republicans that go on being in the driver’s seat with deep supporters of the CUP replace them?