The proliferation of democratic-Islamic regimes in the Middle East cannot lead to peace. In view of its basic definition, it will theoretically proof that it does bring peace but in the reason sense, democracy can be defined as a set of rule that is set aside for the numerous to bull the less numerous in the society. In the case of Middle East nations, egalitarian actions cannot stop war in Middle East but instead increases the tension within the religions and nations (Kamrava & Mehran, p89)
Democracy symbolizes rationalization and marginalization process of the weak group in the Middle East, thus increasing the rivalry between the convoluted parties. In egalitarian nations, their egalitarianisms have the methodology to fight war. This implies that encouraging democracy increases the chances of learning new war techniques and thus in return increasing the tension. The so called democracy, providing a specific example in the middle cannot be achieved. The issue of religious conflict in the Middle East started when the issue of democracy started to intensify (Ziadeh &Radwan, p56). Democracy can be described as a virus that is intensively affecting the unity of Middle East nations and try its best to split the groups into their religious ethnics.
In most cases, democracy encourages the minority groups that may have a feeling of exploitation from the majority to secede against them. The war is then navigated forward by the so called democracy. In Middle East the fight for “democracy” is the cause of the actual war. The marginal group in Middle East fight for their right in the name of democracy and with this in mind, the war will intensify unless the so called the fight for democracy is abolished for peace to be observed in return.
The probable reason why people will continue fighting in the Middle East will be as a result of a struggle between the oppressed and the oppressors. In this context, oppressed individuals have been taught the rule of democracy and hence leading to their sudden struggle for their freedom. It is obvious that the Islamic region in Middle East is the majority group. The governments in support of introduction and sustainability of democracy in Middle East have a common interest (Diamond, Larry, Marc, Plattner, and Daniel,p 56). In this regard, it clearly explains that they know democracy will bring forth conflicts and war. When the different ethnics fight, the involved parties take that opportunity to exploit the natural resources. The introduction of “democracy” in Arab nations implies a religious struggle, cultural and economic. As long as democracy still survives, peace will never prevail in Middle East.
In order to avoid enduring setbacks, rigorous base Middle East country should require prior to and during a diplomatic meeting addressing about proliferation which can’t lead to a democratic peace instead it bring antagonism in foreign affairs between countries. Most of the Middle East countries are engaging themselves in a talk concerning the issues of nuclear non-proliferation. Resolving Middle East nuclear file remains paramount, but a solution is not in sight (Mullins, Christopher and Thomas, p67). The arranged conferences promote a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.
This has been taken as a realistic strategies by others country and has resulted to peace and cooperation of Middle East countries with global countries. Non-proliferations program has resulted to democracy and stability in Middle East. Therefore there are renewed expectations for better opportunities in addressing the proliferation question. These events bring democracy and prosperity in return there is generation of stability and peace. Democratic-Islamic regimes are non-governmental organizations that maintain and publish indices of freedom therefore they deteriorate democracy in Middle East.
Relevance of democratic peace
There is relevance of having democracy peace, democracy theory reflects the liberal conviction that democracy do not go to war with each other. If possible or the global countries were democracies the violent armed conflict would be zero. An easy policy recommendation follows: democracies have to be compelled to unfold democracy by all suggests that because it serves the worldwide and universal smart of all societies and every one individuals as a result of the ultimate outcome would be prosperity peace and stability (Mullins, Christopher and Thomas, p67).
On the other hand, democratic peace isn't merely liberal, however pragmatic goal at identical time in an exceedingly sense that democracy could be a tool to extend stability. Collapsing of the choice system, specifically communism may be comprehensively framed and arranged as social and political, therefore providing a democratic momentum. Group action came to halt by the tip of the primary decade of the twenty first century. It is beyond doubt that transatlantic conquering proliferation and democracy rules.
Conditions for democratic transitions
Democracy is mean in the advanced method of transition, a mean for safeguarding the voters from the state, or from every other; democracy makes the elite that ought to be capable and responsible able to take the correct decisions; helps shield the freedom of all voters, and maintains public product a minimum of at a marginal level. Some thought before the “Arab spring” that the slowed wave of group action is because of the very fact that countries area unit a lot of or less democratic, and people that remained intact, area unit inherently unable to become democratic.
The foremost ordinarily mentioned condition was Islam. Although, it looks that Muslim countries lag behind as a result of the character of the religion; the monotheism orientation encompasses a terribly restricted impact on views regarding democracy. The fears from the “Arab winter” particularly the emergence of religionist teams in geographic area and therefore the Near East proves this argument (Mullins, Christopher and Thomas, p67). The overall public was a lot of involved regarding social and economic queries than normally regarding the precise composition of the parliament or the “democratic” establishments.
Mohammed was the first civilian and Islamism president of Egypt but stayed in power for only one year before his regime was overthrown by the army on July third 2013. The move was attributed by the four days of mass anti-government protests and the president’s rejection of an army ultimatum to resolve Egypt’s political crisis since the deposition of the former president Hosni Mubarak in 2011 (Abnou-Al-Fadl, 1). Mr. Morsi contributed in many evils in Egypt from incitement, public lies, corruption, poor governance; he was a member secret sect, dictatorship and malpractice in tender allocation. This section of the paper discusses the evils of the short reign of the Egyptian president; Mohammed Morsi.
The clearest sign of corruption came during the constitutional crisis in the late 2012. The president made no attempt to mediate as the constituent committee gradually hemorrhaged non-Islamite members, thus becoming less representative and losing participation of crucial institutions. The president constitutional declaration places him above the law until the passing of the new constitution.
The president gave unfair advantages to business figures who are said to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a secret organization that he is a member (Abnou-Al-Fadl, 1).. The aim was to benefit by reaping profit which he intended to repay for his campaign. Since the Freedom and Justice Party could not afford to cater for his campaigns, he had taken loans which he intended to pay in such ways. According to the reports, the president had appointed Hassan Malek to head the businessmen delegation. Hassan was said to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and participated in extraction and exportation of phosphate without paying any charges or taxes to the state.
Morsi’s cabinet was made of his close associates through what was called ‘brotherhoodinization’. Eight of his members of cabinet were islamists from the secret sect. they took influential positions such as minister for information and education, minister for justice and the reshuffle which included two more ministers from the Muslim Brotherhood. The president and his prime minister prioritized the interests of the brotherhood group despite there being political conflict in Egypt. That showed the height of his cruelty in leadership and eventually led to the coup.
President Morsi did not bring in a different government from the former of Mr. Hosni. When he took charge, the president continued working with the old ministers such as the interior minister. It seemed as though it was prior planned that the president would retain the minister (Al-Aswany, 1). Despite the new regime, Egyptians were still humiliated in the police stations. This shows that the president and his regime do not care about the citizen being tortured and their dignity violated. The same case applies to the Egyptian citizens’ abroad. The case in Saudi Arabia is worse and Egyptian citizens are tortured and detained but the government does nothing.
Morsi’s government was not different from Mubarak’s because he included ministers from the former regime in his cabinet (Abnou-Al-Fadl, 1). This shows that the two rulers were not different. The president was partial towards the rich. He tried to please them be creating a favorable environment to increase their wealth. He never cared about the poor and this shows the similarity between his regime and that of Mubarak. Despite the economic difficulties facing Egypt, he never tried to regulate the government spending. He borrowed $ 4.8 billion from the international monetary fund without revealing the terms of the loan to the public.
Just like the Mubarak regime, Morsi’s government wanted to control the media. Instead of making the media independent, the president appointed a member of the Muslim brotherhood as the minister of information and the Shura council; was dominated by the brotherhood members whose main aim was to protect the interest of the brotherhood (Abnou-Al-Fadl, 1).. The group practiced media censorship in order to protect the new regime.
President Morsi gave a speech in which he accused the former prime minister and his presidential runner up Ahmed Shafik for corruption when purchasing aircrafts. The president presented false figures that suggested that the former PM had purchased Boeing 737-800 for the price of $ 148 $ per aircraft whereas the actual price was $ 98 million per aircraft. The president alleged that the former PM had falsified documents and taken the extra money (Egyptian, 1). However, official release from Boeing gave the truth of the matter which contradicted the president’s statement. Another incident was on Judge Ali Al-Nemr who was accused of rigging the 2005 elections. Other media figures were accused of evading taxes and inciting violence.
As most of the Egyptians so no choice than to vote for Morsi as the president, they did not agree to the ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood. After his election, the president’s political became clear. He was no different from his predecessor Hosni Mubarak. He was corrupt, dictatorial and a propagator of nepotism. He gave his friend s posts and advantages to accumulate wealth while he cared little about the poor and the torture they experience under the police or in foreign countries.
Abnou-Al-Fadl, Reem. "Mohamed Morsi Mubarak: The Myth of Egypt's Democratic Transition." Jadaliyya. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. <http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/10119/mohamed-morsi-mubarak_the-myth-of-egypts-democrati>.
Al Jazeera. "Egypt's Morsi charged with inciting murder of protesters | Al Jazeera America."Fact-Based, In-Depth News | Al Jazeera America. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. <http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/1/egypt-s-morsi-chargedwithincitingmurderofprotesters.html>.
Al-Aswany, Alaa. "Is Egypt's Morsi the New Mubarak? the Pulse of the Middle East." Al-Monitor. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. <http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ar/contents/articles/politics/2012/09/mohammed-morsi-the-new-hosni-mubarak.html>.
Egyptian Streety. "Exposing President Morsi’s Lies." Egyptian Streets شوارع مصر. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. <http://egyptianstreets.com/2013/06/27/exposing-president-morsis-lies/>.
Mullins, Christopher R, and Thomas H. Johnson. State Capacity and Resistance in Afghanistan. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School, 2012. Print.
Building for Security and Peace in the Middle East: An American Agenda. Washington, DC: Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 1997. Print.
Diamond, Larry J, Marc F. Plattner, and Daniel Brumberg. Islam and Democracy in the Middle East. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003. Print.
Einfeld, J. Can democracy succeed in the Middle East?. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Print.
Kamrava, Mehran. Democracy in the Balance: Culture and Society in the Middle East. New York, N.Y: Chatham House Publishers, 1998. Print.
Merino, Noël. The Middle East. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Print.
Ziadeh, Radwan. Power and Policy in Syria: Intelligence Services, Foreign Relations and Democracy in the Modern Middle East. London: I.B. Tauris, 2011. Print