These historical conditions have created many paradoxes, not only because the methods of this region’s inhabitants’ of determining their future. The responsibilities of those who perceive the region only as an interest zone and not as a place where real people live must also be examined. The Middle East was scattered by Europe’s colonial powers during the 19th century through the famous “divide and rule” policy. In the 20th century the leaders of the two blocs, the US and the Soviet Union, decided to apply a “unite and rule” policy. The leaders and the states created had always adopted political positions in order to comply with the wills of the powers that divide or unite. That’s why governments having different guides in this bipolar world became each other’s natural rivals. The presence of this rivalry has created a political environment helping those who want to intervene in the region and has assured the legitimacy of Middle Eastern leaders’ authoritarian regimes. Despite this structure, the peoples of the region didn’t perceive one another as “the other” and have sometimes even managed to pursue their fights against their own governments and Western powers.
After the end of the Cold War it became easier to understand that the real issues are not between states, but societies. The Western powers and the Middle Eastern governments have understood the social dimensions of this region’s conflicts and have also seen that the old parameters don’t count anymore. But nor did new parameters of the problems’ resolution appear, because power relations stemming from the old system still retain their influence.
In brief old leaders, pre-used methods and the same “Western” interests still exist, but social demands are now different. This binary structure has blocked the answer to the essential question about the Middle East: How can this region develop a culture of compromise, become transparent and have participative political regimes via its own dynamics? In other words, how will the Middle East become democratic?
At this point we have two problems ahead of us: First there are regimes, groups and ethnicities that don’t want to have a democratic Middle East. When a culture of compromise develops nobody will be able to make profits through the conflicts. Some governments need to manipulate the fears of their people in order to consolidate their power.
The fight with the “other” expands in proportion to the magnitude of the fear. Thus the conflicts become interminable and unbearable. The losses of men, resources and money increase constantly. In order to pursue the fight new resources are constantly sought. The search for new resources makes us return to the beginning, creating a vicious circle.
The second issue is about the democratization process in the Middle East. There is a will for democratization in the region, but those who ask for it also want the current governments to remain in power. Values like Islam, which can disturb the “West,” should not grow stronger and conflict is generated from all this.
Societies that continue to see the future through scenarios of division and unification -- and the fears generated by them -- and that have governments to conform to those predictions, will finally be obliged to choose either division or unification.
