Doug applies lesser-evilism where he shouldn't -- in the United States, as shown by his dogged defense of voting for John Kerry and unfair vilification of Ralph Nader -- and fails to apply it where he ought. :->
> He's got that characteristic of Islamist politicians which also accounted for
> the popularity of the Taliban in the early days and of the Islamic Courts Union
> in Somalia (and the JEM in Sudan) - he's honest. Personal integrity is a big
> thing with all the Islamist types.
Considering rampant corruption, nepotism, and so on in the Middle East, personal integrity is no doubt appealing to many working people there, who don't otherwise care for Islamism at all. They look at Nasrallah, and see a man one of whose sons gave his life to a cause very dear to them; they look at Mubarak, and see a man who suppresses democracy and is grooming his younger son as his successor (cf. "A book describing President Husni Mubarak's son Gamal as 'the most qualified' person to become Egypt's next leader is being distributed across Egypt" ["Book Eulogises Mubarak's Son," 10 March 2004, <http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3D0AECFE-9868-4334-9858-27AE244A73E9.htm>]; "On February 26, 2005, Mubarak ordered the constitution changed to allow multi-candidate presidential elections before September 2005 by asking parliament to amend Article 76 of the Egyptian constitution. This change in the constitution is seen by some analysts as a ploy to seamlessly allow Gamal Mubarak to inherit the top position in Egypt. The view is that Gamal Mubarak would be one of the candidates in a coming presidential elections and would enjoy full backing from the ruling party and the government-controlled media. The other serious candidates would be disqualified by the NDP-controlled People's Assembly leaving the less popular candidates. Thus, the inheritance of power would be done in a 'democratic" way' ["Gamal Mubarak," <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamal_Mubarak>]). The contrast is clear to them.
> There are still a lot of nasty questions to ask Sadr about exactly what
> happened during his period in charge of Najaf; I have not seen the reports of
> ad-hoc sharia courts and severed limbs substantiated (which makes me sceptical
> about them) but nor have they been falsified and I personally suspect that
> serious violations took place. I also think that his disavowal of any
> involvement with Abu Diri's death squad is not completely credible; although
> one would have to note in a political context that he at least denies being
> associated with death squads which is more than SCIRI do with the Badr
> Brigades.
I'm afraid we'll never know the truth of allegations about Sadr. Iraq is not in a condition where reporters can do real investigative journalism confirming or falsifying them.
> Recall that the whole initial kick-off for Sadr was that the Americans censored
> his newspaper for making a wholly sensible call for immediate democratic
> elections, not a sharia state. Sadr has also been scrupulous in following
> Sistani's lead in not taking Shia sectarian politics as a reason for becoming a
> catspaw for Iran.
They say Sistani's influence is waning: "'[Sistani] doesn't have the same degree of influence,' says Joost Hilterman, director of the International Crisis Group's Iraq program, based in Jordan. 'He may be saying the same things, but fewer people are listening to him.' As much as anything, the battle now is about which voices will shape the future of Iraq" (Scott Johnson, "Silent Sistani," <http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14535061/site/newsweek/>).
Sadr should not take orders from Tehran, but he needs its backing, much as Nasrallah doesn't have his politics dictated by Tehran but gets its backing. Sadr has modelled what his organization does on Hizballah -- including service to the people -- which is a good sign.
> He is, at the end of the day, an Islamist and a fundamentalist and I personally
> would certainly not vote for him if he stood for Holborn & St Pancras. He's
> not very fond of gays and he advocates an entirely illiberal penal code and few
> civil liberties. But both those things are also true of Fidel Castro and being
> a Fidelista isn't taboo on this list is it?
Precisely. Philosophically, Marxism is no less politically illiberal than Islamism, and those socialists who took power generally have as poor records as -- or sometimes worse records than -- Islamists. Secular leftists need to reckon with our own history and think about what kind of democracy we want in our own country and what kind of democracy they are prepared to support in other countries, without prejudice as to the question of religious faith of democrats.
> I think that qualified support for
> al-Sadr as a genuinely popular figure and perhaps among the least worst
> feasible options in Iraq is a much more reasonable position than being
> enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad (who I confess I see as a George Galloway
> figure; a basically appalling character who possesses the single redeeming
> feature that he winds up all the right people).
Yes, all the right people, such as yours truly, as far as Ahmadinejad is concerned (except George Galloway doesn't turn me on at all -- no offense, Lenin!). Winding up with all the right people is the single most important skill that a political leader can have. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>