The link in the title is to an article about the first world press freedom center established in Qatar. Unfortunately Qatar seems to have gotten more than it bargained for.
I think this article brings up important issues of conservative governments adopting western ideals or practices too soon, causing a backlash. Qatar is ruled by an emir and as an authoritarian state freedom of the press is a dangerous game to be playing. If Qatar's Emir does shut the center down, what does that say about the situation in the middle east, when would it be ready for such a center? Is it even possible for a monarchy to support freedom of the press without change occuring?
Its an interesting article and a fascinating situation. Qatar has an unusual place in world politics in that its positioned somewhere in between the Western and Muslim worlds ideologically. For example, it was the headquarters and one of the main launching sites for the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which indicates its good relations with the West. Its also a modern country with a high standard of living (the second highest GDP per capita in the world, thanks in large part to oil) and developed social services.
ReplyDeleteSimultaneously it is a fairly conservative Muslim country, more liberal than, say, Saudi Arabia but less than other Arab countries like Bahrain. Islamic law does apply in many areas but at the same time women can drive cars and vote and there are other similar variations emphasising the value of equality, probably due, in part, to the fact that a large part of Qatars population are expatriates attracted by the oil industry and the zero income tax.
However its record with other aspects of human rights is a little patchy by Western standards, with a sponsorship system of employment that has been described as moder-day slavery.
So where does all of this fit with the news article? Well we have certainly seen before how countries can, having liberalised too rapidly, slip backwards quickly towards more conservative practices. What does the emir have in his plan for Qatar? I'm sure that to the Western countries Qatar is very valuable in that it shows how two apparently contradictory value systems can work cooperatively together. But there may be a flipside to that. Its highly probable that someone from a far more conservative part of the muslim world would see how Qatars liberalisation is a corruption of what is most important and a betrayal of muslim principles. Instead Qatar may be seen as an example of the inevitable consequence that occurs when muslims cooperate with the West: moral degradation and a decline towards immorality.
Or perhaps not? Others might see that it IS in fact possible to be a 'good' muslim but maintain a cooperative relationship with the West. Perhaps you can enjoy many of the nice benefits of Western materialism and entertainment but remain true to the Islamic faith?
If the emir shuts the centre down is it deliberalisation? Is it Qatar becoming more conservative and rejecting Western principles? Could this be a good thing overall and progress in the relationship between these two worlds? I think that its not necessarily as bad as it seems on face value because while not being the best for our generally accepted values of freedom of speech it demonstrates that the mixing of Western and Middle Eastern cultures does not necessarily mean the replacement of Islamic values with Western ones, and as a result could make many more openminded to the idea of cooperation with the West
Is this really about "culture"? Looking over the article, it does not look like there are great masses of people arguing against the press freedom center; it's more that Menand happened to publicly reprimand the ruler, who is after all an absolute monarch, after officials within Qatar tried to prevent journalists from seeking asylum in Qatar. Press freedom is inconsistent with absolute rule, to be sure, but that does not seem to be something that we need to explain by reference to Islamic conservatism, or do we?
ReplyDeleteI see. When put like that the issue seems far less about cultural values than it does about the simple case of a monarch reacting to dissent. However why did the officials prevent journalists from seeking asylum in Qatar? That seems to me to be at least somewhat culturally based. I don't know. I certainly could be wrongly seeing a cultural spin when it may not exist.
ReplyDeleteI think putting the center in Qatar was a little bit provocative and idealistic. Freedom of speech comes with a culture of criticism of God, values and regimes and these patterns are not present in the Middle East or in Muslim countries. In fact their culture goes against them, the simple fact that you cannot mock Mohamed the prophet it is very conservative. Also those countries have an absolute ruler and unfortunately absolute monarchy and freedom of speech do not go together.
ReplyDeleteQatar can have good relations with western countries but that does not mean that Qatar has a western culture influence. Also Western countries like to have good relations with Qatar this way there is no another Muslim country against them. Good relations arrange their interests. Also Qatar could be ruled by anyone. By that I mean the ruler could love or hate the West, Western countries would not care as long the ruler will sell them oil at fair prices.