- Article Written By Arvin Niknia, Independent Author
In my last article, I wrote about how the British divided the Middle East together with the French. I was biased about Kurds and Baloch. Balochs were divided into the Pakistani and the Persian parts. It was to create a buffer zone between old Persia and India because of Russia and Napoleon. Afghanistan was created after the fall of the Durrani Empire and the last Angelo-Afghan war (1926). Later, Bangladesh was created when the Americans failed Pakistan. Colonialism destroyed the Middle East and created nationalism, which Islamism later replaced due to American cultural imperialism. The young generation was no longer loyal to the nation-states that had given them welfare and a good life, as they were tired of cultural imperialism. They were tired of the states imitating the West.
Women wore headscarves then, while today, they fight against headscarves and Islamization; therefore, nationalism was strengthened again in the Middle East. In Egypt, the military took power to block Islamism. Islam limits democracy and human rights. Islamic feminists could not come up with a solution, and reformism in Iran was blocked by extremism in the parliament. Iran showed that reforms are impossible under an Islamic authoritarian state, as reforms are only possible in a secularly responsible state. Demonstrations were crushed, and political leaders were arrested. Social media alone was not enough to win the battle against authoritarian states. The fall of the Soviet Union became possible when Moscow no longer ordered suppression. Moscow was silent.The oil in the Middle East is vital to the US and the West; therefore, they did not support people in Bahrain, but even if one day the oil loses its importance, countries like Afghanistan, Iran, and Qatar will still be necessary because of lithium (battery) and gas.
In this article, I will argue why a constitutional monarchy is better for the Middle East than a republic. Although the monarch in a constitutional monarchy will still seek influence in the background and is far from democracy, this form is better for the Middle East. It is because nationalism is strong in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the King is the one who represents a specific religion, a certain skin color, a particular ethnicity, and other undemocratic elements; he is also the one who can gather a country and several ethnic groups together. Kings have always ruled the Middle East. However, the constituent form must be characterized by more decentralization so that the various ethnic groups can have some self-determination. This is in contrast to the Western centralized form of democracy, as minorities in the West do not pose a threat.
Furthermore, republics in the Middle East have been shown to turn into authoritarian states due to cultural problems and a lack of tolerance. A secularly constituted monarchy that respects decentralization and self-determination will be the best solution. I know that the best democracy in the world is the American democracy, and the most successful revolution in history belongs to the American Revolution and not the French Revolution. However, this kind of democracy is not the best solution for the Middle East because of foreign colonial intentions, globalism, and neoliberalism. Due to the significant class differences and inflation resulting from authoritarian states, societal balance must be created. Despite being the best form of democracy in the world, the United States failed to create basic democratic foundations such as free hospitals, education and support for the poor. Today states with kings like Dubai, Qatar and Jordan have better welfare than other countries in the Middle East. If constituted monarchy is impossible then it must be like the German model due to decentralization and secularization. The Middle East must not imitate the West but create its own democracy. I argued in my previous articles that democracy loses its meaning in poverty and materialism. In my next article, I will write about feminism.
