François Burgat Discusses Western and Islamist Roles in Middle Eastern Political Strategy
D
r. François Burgat is in a good place to critique the Western approach to Middle Eastern politics. French by origin, he has spent the last twenty years as a researcher and diplomat living throughout the Middle East. The Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies invited Burgat, who is currently the director of the prestigious Institute Français du Proche Orient, to speak about his most recent book, Islamism in the Shadow of Al Qaida. His theory is that the West misunderstands Middle Eastern political tensions by labeling everything Muslim as political Islam and failing to understand its own contribution to the situation. “We over-theologize our understanding of political tensions,” he explained.
The history of colonization on the Middle East, Burgat argues, is a significant factor in today’s politics. During the colonial period, the West viewed its culture and values as universal notions, imposing its worldview on others. Muslims were forced into the category of “other” and denied the right to consider their values universal.
In the wake of colonialism, Arab nationalism dominated the Middle East political scene up to the 1967 war with Israel, when defeat led Islamism to replace Arab nationalism as the dominant ideology. Even committed secularists, communists, and leftists joined forces with Islamists. What made them move from an anti-religious to a religious stance? Their narratives teach us that nationalism should embrace the heart of the Arab world—Islam.
Al-Qaida gained momentum in the same environment where Islamism and its lexicon pervaded. Unilateral US foreign policy following the collapse of the USSR further marginalized Muslims, who were already alienated by stagnating economies, closed political systems, and international failure to produce a just solution to the conflict with Israel.
Arab governments continue to play a role in fueling the radical Islamist discourse. Poor democratic performance has led people to believe that the current system can never serve their needs. Indeed, Burgat accused these countries of relying more on repression than representation.
The West is partially to blame: radicalization is fueled to great extent by resentment of Western policies supporting autocratic regimes such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. The West has also largely failed to recognize the wide diversity of opinion among Islamists, or to appreciate the open debates on religion and politics in the Middle East. It is to the West’s detriment to lump together actors, label them extremists, and declare a clash of civilization based on the other’s “different” values.
Burgat offered up a “secret weapon of mass destruction” to combat terrorism: sharing. He advocated sharing not only political resources, but also symbolic cultural ones—in other words, accepting that another culture can express universality. There must be a political and cultural opening, and recognition that certain governments, while serving Western interests, are not meeting their citizens’. Support must end for regimes that have no democratic agenda.
Asked by an audience member why more “good” Muslims are not speaking out against terrorism, Burgat pointed out that “good” usually refers to people who agree with us, and that as Westerners, we must give up the notion that we own universal beliefs. “The worst thing that can happen to all of us is having hegemony.” He invited the audience to let go of the arrogant notion that Western culture is the norm, and open space for others to share their perspectives.
Cybèle Cochran F’09