Melanie Phillips: having her cake and eating it
It seems that Daily Mail columnist and broadcaster Melanie Phillips is back on the special sauce again. She seems to be having a little trouble deciding whether all this democracy that is supposedly gushing forth across the Middle East is actually, well, worth the trouble after all.
In a recent article in the Mail, “A glimmer of hope” (March 7th) she decided to prematurely jump on the 'Arab Spring' bandwagon, hailing the anti-Syrian riots in Beirut – combined with the promised electoral reforms in Saudi Arabia and Egypt – as the consequences of the war in Iraq.
Numerous, less melodrama-inclined commentators, have debunked this idea, and I criticised such sentiments in an earlier posting. However, what is curious about Phillips’ rant is that in her online diary for March 8th she subsequently abandons her optimistic outlook for a more negative critique of the potential of Middle Eastern democracy.
She quotes liberally from an article by Daniel Pipes, in which he offers a stern warning of the very real “danger” that anti-Western governments could come to power, given the widespread resentment of the U.S. across the region. It seems he’s worried about the threat of “Islamist ideologues”, and our Melanie heartily concurs.
It’s a question that many commentators in Phillips’ position – not to mention the politicians proclaiming the “march” of democracy – have carefully eschewed: what happens if the ‘wrong’ kind of government comes to power? What if, as has happened in Iraq, the Western-anointed candidate comes a distant third?
Melanie, its time to make up your mind. Are you really interested in Arab democracy? Or are you more interested in pro-Western, Israel-friendly governments across the region, regardless of what the populace wants? My guess is that when it comes to the crunch, the answer is the latter.
In a recent article in the Mail, “A glimmer of hope” (March 7th) she decided to prematurely jump on the 'Arab Spring' bandwagon, hailing the anti-Syrian riots in Beirut – combined with the promised electoral reforms in Saudi Arabia and Egypt – as the consequences of the war in Iraq.
Numerous, less melodrama-inclined commentators, have debunked this idea, and I criticised such sentiments in an earlier posting. However, what is curious about Phillips’ rant is that in her online diary for March 8th she subsequently abandons her optimistic outlook for a more negative critique of the potential of Middle Eastern democracy.
She quotes liberally from an article by Daniel Pipes, in which he offers a stern warning of the very real “danger” that anti-Western governments could come to power, given the widespread resentment of the U.S. across the region. It seems he’s worried about the threat of “Islamist ideologues”, and our Melanie heartily concurs.
It’s a question that many commentators in Phillips’ position – not to mention the politicians proclaiming the “march” of democracy – have carefully eschewed: what happens if the ‘wrong’ kind of government comes to power? What if, as has happened in Iraq, the Western-anointed candidate comes a distant third?
Melanie, its time to make up your mind. Are you really interested in Arab democracy? Or are you more interested in pro-Western, Israel-friendly governments across the region, regardless of what the populace wants? My guess is that when it comes to the crunch, the answer is the latter.
posted by DN at 6:40 AM
1 Comments:
you gotta love the decisive, informative media... obviously issues like democracy in the Middle East are multi-faceted and difficult to commit any one position, however, it comes down to a pretty simple question: do you support democracy? yeah... i thought not. frickin' hypocrites.
Post a Comment
<< Home