IRAQ

Iraq is a prime example of the ensuing conflicts and chaos. The more religious among the Shia never accepted that a Sunni-led government should have control over their holy cities such as Najaf and Karbala, where their martyrs Ali and Hussein are said to be buried. These communal feelings go back centuries; a few decades of being called ‘Iraqis’ was never going to dilute such emotions.

As rulers of the Ottoman Empire the Turks saw a rugged, mountainous area dominated by Kurds, then, as the mountains fell away into the flatlands leading towards Baghdad, and west to what is now Syria, they saw a place where the majority of people were Sunni Arabs. 

Finally, after the two great rivers the Tigris and the Euphrates merged and ran down to the Shatt al-Arab waterway, the marshlands and the city of Basra, they saw more Arabs, most of whom were Shia. They ruled this space accordingly, dividing it into three administrative regions: Mosul, Baghdad and Basra.

In antiquity, the regions very roughly corresponding to the above were known as Assyria, Babylonia and Sumer. When the Persians controlled the space they divided it in a similar way, as did Alexander the Great, and later the Umayyad Empire. The British looked at the same area and divided the three into one, a logical impossibility Christians can resolve through the Holy Trinity, but which in Iraq has resulted in an unholy mess.

Many analysts say that only a strong man could unite these three areas into one country, and Iraq had one strong man after another. But in reality the people were never unified, they were only frozen with fear. In the one place which the dictators could not see, people’s minds, few bought into the propaganda of the state, wallpapering as it did over the systematic persecution of the Kurds, the domination by Saddam’s Sunni Muslim clan from his home town of Tikrit, nor the mass slaughter of the Shia after their failed uprising in 1991.

The Kurds were the first to leave. The smallest minorities in a dictatorship will sometimes pretend to believe the propaganda that their rights are protected because they lack the strength to do anything about the reality. For example, Iraq’s Christian minority, and its handful of Jews, felt they might be safer keeping quiet in a secular dictatorship, such as Saddam’s, than risk change and what they feared might, and indeed has, followed. However, the Kurds were geographically defined and, crucially, numerous enough to be able to react when the reality of dictatorship became too much.

Iraq’s five million Kurds are concentrated in the north and north-eastern provinces of Irbil, Sulaymaniyah and Dahuk and their surrounding areas. It is a giant crescent of mostly hills and mountains, which meant the Kurds retained their distinct identity despite repeated cultural and military attacks against them, such as the al-Anfal campaign of 1988, which included aerial gas attacks against villages. During the eight-stage campaign, Saddam’s forces took no prisoners and killed all males aged between fifteen and fifty that they came across. Up to 100,000 Kurds were murdered and 90 per cent of their villages wiped off the map.

When in 1990 Saddam Hussein over-reached into Kuwait, the Kurds went on to seize their chance to make history and turn Kurdistan into the reality they had been promised after the First World War in the Treaty of Sèvres (1920), but never granted. At the tail end of the Gulf War conflict the Kurds rose up, the Allied forces declared a ‘safe zone’ into which Iraqi forces were not allowed, and a de facto Kurdistan began to take shape. The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the USA cemented what appears to be a fact – Baghdad will not again rule the Kurds.

Sykes - Picot

 

After the First World War, there were fewer borders in the wider Middle East than currently exist, and those that did exist were usually determined by geography alone. The spaces within them were loosely subdivided and governed according to geography, ethnicity and religion, but there was no attempt to create nation states.

The Greater Middle East extends across 1,000 miles, west to east, from the Mediterranean Sea to the mountains of Iran. From north to south, if we start at the Black Sea and end on the shores of the Arabian Sea off Oman, it is 2,000 miles long. The region includes vast deserts, oases, snow-covered mountains, long rivers, great cities and coastal plains. And it has a great deal of natural wealth in the form that every industrialised and industrialising country around the world needs – oil and gas.

It also contains the fertile region known as Mesopotamia, the ‘land between the rivers’ (the Euphrates and Tigris). However, the most dominant feature is the vast Arabian Desert and scrubland in its centre which touches parts of Israel, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen and most of Saudi Arabia including the Rub’ al Khali or ‘Empty Quarter’. This is the largest continuous sand desert in the world, incorporating an area the size of France. It is due to this feature not only that the majority of the inhabitants of the region live on its periphery, but also that until European colonisation most of the people within it did not think in terms of nation states and legally fixed borders.

The notion that a man from a certain area could not travel across a region to see a relative from the same tribe unless he had a document, granted to him by a third man he didn’t know in a faraway town, made little sense. The idea that the document was issued because a foreigner had said the area was now two regions and had made up names for them made no sense at all and was contrary to the way in which life had been lived for centuries.

The Ottoman Empire (1299–1922) was ruled from Istanbul. At its height it stretched from the gates of Vienna, across Anatolia and down through Arabia to the Indian Ocean. From west to east it took in what are now Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Israel/Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and parts of Iran. It had never bothered to make up names for most of these regions; in 1867 it simply divided them into administrative areas known as ‘Vilayets’, which were usually based on where certain tribes lived, be they the Kurds in present-day Northern Iraq, or the tribal federations in what is now part of Syria and part of Iraq.

When the Ottoman Empire began to collapse, the British and French had a different idea. In 1916 the British diplomat Colonel Sir Mark Sykes took a Chinagraph pencil and drew a crude line across a map of the Middle East. It ran from Haifa on the Mediterranean in what is now Israel to Kirkuk (now in Iraq) in the north-east. It became the basis of his secret agreement with his French counterpart François Georges-Picot to divide the region into two spheres of influence should the Triple Entente defeat the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. North of the line was to be under French control, south of it under British hegemony.

The term ‘Sykes–Picot’ has become shorthand for the various decisions made in the first third of the twentieth century which betrayed promises given to tribal leaders and which partially explain the unrest and extremism of today. This explanation can be overstated, though: there was violence and extremism before the Europeans arrived. Nevertheless, as we saw in Africa, arbitrarily creating ‘nation states’ out of people unused to living together in one region is not a recipe for justice, equality and stability.

Prior to Sykes–Picot (in its wider sense), there was no state of Syria, no Lebanon, nor were there Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel or Palestine. Modern maps show the borders and the names of nation states, but they are young and they are fragile.

Suddenly A Knock On The Door - Etgar Keret

In this country,’ he explains, ‘if you want something, you have to use force.’ He just got here from Sweden, and in Sweden it’s completely different. Over there, if you want something, you ask politely, and most of the time you get it. But not in the stifling, sweaty Middle East. All it takes is one week in this place to figure out how things work – or rather, how things don’t work. The Palestinians asked for a state, nicely. Did they get one? Like hell they did. So they switched to blowing up children on buses, and people started listening. The settlers called for a dialogue. Did anyone take them up on it? Of course not. So they started getting physical, pouring hot oil on the border patrolmen, and suddenly they had an audience. In this country, might makes right, and it doesn’t matter if it’s about politics, or economics or a parking space. Brute force is the only language we understand.

The "Muslim World"

By Cemil Aydin
Full version if this article is originally published as What is Muslim World? by aeon.co on 1 August 2018.

Nearly a fifth of the way into the 21st century, however, Pan-Africanism and Pan-Asianism seems to have vanished but Pan-Islamism and the ideal of Muslim world solidarity survives. Why? The answer lies in the final stages of the Cold War. It was in the 1980s that a new Muslim internationalism emerged, as part of a rising political Islam. It was not a clash between the primordial civilisational traditions of Islam and the West, or a reassertion of authentic religious values. It wasn’t even a persistence of early 20th-century Pan-Islamism, but rather a new formation of the Cold War. A Saudi-US alliance began promoting the idea of Muslim solidarity in the 1970s as an alternative to the secular Pan-Arabism of the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, whose country allied with the Soviet Union. Any ideas of an ‘Islamic’ utopia would have floundered if not for the failures of many post-colonial nation-states and the subsequent public disillusionment of many Muslims.

The notion that Pan-Islamism represents authentic, ancient, repressed Muslim political values in revolt against global Westernisation and secularisation was initially a paranoid obsession of Western colonial officers, but recently it comes mainly from Islamists. Western pundits and journalists have erred in accepting at face value Islamist claims about Islam’s essential political values. The kind of Islamism that’s identified with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood or Ruhollah Khomeini’s Iran did not exist before the 1970s. None of the Indian Muslims meeting Wilson, nor the late Ottoman-era caliphs, were interested in imposing Sharia in their society. None of them wanted to veil women. On the contrary, the first Pan-Islamist generation was highly modernist: they were proponents of the liberation of women, racial equality and cosmopolitanism. Indian Muslims, for example, were very proud that the Ottoman caliph had Greek and Armenian ministers and ambassadors. They also wanted to see the British Crown appointing Hindu and Muslim ministers and high-level officials in their governments. None would have desired or predicted the separation of Turks and Greeks in Ottoman lands, Arabs and Jews in Palestine, and Muslims and Hindus in India. Only the basic form of early 20th-century Pan-Islamism survives today; the substance of it has, since the 1980s, transformed completely.

The fact that both Lewis and Osama bin Laden spoke of an eternal clash between a united Muslim world and a united West does not mean it is a reality. Even at the peak of the idea of global Muslim solidarity in the late 19th century, Muslim societies were divided across political, linguistic and cultural lines. Since the time of prophet Muhammad’s Companions in the seventh century, hundreds of diverse kingdoms, empires and sultanates, some in conflict with each other, ruled over Muslim populations mixed with others. Separating Muslims from their Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and Jewish neighbours, and thinking of their societies in isolation, bears no relationship to the historical experience of human beings. There has never been, and could never be, a separate ‘Muslim world’.

All the new fascist Right-wing anti-Muslim groups in Europe and the US obsesses over Ottoman imperial expansion in eastern Europe. They see the Ottoman siege of Vienna of 1683 as the Islamic civilisation’s near-takeover of ‘the West’. But in the Battle of Vienna, Protestant Hungarians allied with the predominantly Muslim Ottoman empire against the Catholic Habsburgs. It was a complex conflict between empires and states, not a clash of civilisations.

The Hindu nationalism of India’s prime minister Narendra Modi promotes the idea of an alien Mughal empire that invaded India and ruled over Hindus. But Hindu bureaucrats played a vital role in India’s Mughal empire, and Mughal emperors were simply empire-builders, not zealots of theocratic rule over different faith communities. There are also Muslims today who look back at the Mughal empire in India as an instance of Muslim domination over Hindus. It is notable and important that anti-Muslim Western propaganda and Pan-Islamic narratives of history resemble one another. They both rely on the civilisational narrative of history and a geopolitical division of the world into discrete ahistorical entities such as black Africa, the Muslim world, Asia and the West.

Contemporary Pan-Islamism also idealises a mythical past. According to Pan-Islamists, the ummah, or worldwide Muslim community, originated at a time when Muslims were not humiliated by racist white empires or aggressive Western powers. Pan-Islamists want to ‘make the ummah great again’. Yet the notion of a golden age of Muslim political unity and solidarity relies on amnesia about the imperial past. Muslim societies were never politically united, and there were never homogeneous Muslim societies in Eurasia. None of the Muslim dynasty-ruled empires aimed to subjugate non-Muslims by pious believers. Like the Ottoman, Persian or Egyptian monarchs of the late 19th century, they were multi-ethnic empires, employing thousands of non-Muslim bureaucrats. Muslim populations simply never asked for global ummah solidarity before the late 19th-century moment of racialised European empires.

The term ‘the Muslim world’ first appeared in the 1870s. Initially, it was European missionaries or colonial officers who favoured it as a shorthand to refer to all those between the ‘yellow race’ of East Asia and the black race in Africa. They also used it to express their fear of a potential Muslim revolt, though Muslim subjects of empire were no more or less rebellious to their empires than Hindu or Buddhist subjects. After the great Indian Rebellion of 1857, when both Hindus and Muslims rose up against the British, some British colonial officers blamed Muslims for this uprising. William Wilson Hunter, a British colonial officer, questioned whether Indian Muslims could be loyal to a Christian monarch in his influential book, The Indian Musalmans: Are They Bound in Conscience to Rebel Against the Queen? (1871). In reality, Muslims were not much different from Hindus in terms of their loyalty as well as their critique of the British empire. Elite Indian Muslims, such as the reformist Syed Ahmad Khan, wrote angry rebuttals to Hunter’s allegations. But they also accepted his terms of debate, in which Muslims were a distinct and separate category of Indians.

The growth of European nationalisms also found a useful enemy in Muslims, specifically the Ottoman sultan. In the late 19th century, Greek, Serbian, Romanian and Bulgarian nationalists all began to depict the Ottoman sultan as a despot. They appealed to British liberals to break the Ottoman-British alliance on behalf of a global Christian solidarity. Anti-Ottoman British liberals such as William Gladstone argued that Christian solidarity should be important for British decisions with regard to the Ottoman empire. It is in that context that the Ottoman sultan referred to his spiritual link with Indian Muslims, to argue for a return to an Ottoman-British alliance thanks to this special connection between these two big Muslim empires.

In his influential book The Future of Islam (1882), the English poet Wilfrid Scawen Blunt argued that the Ottoman empire would eventually be expelled from Europe, and that Europe’s crusading spirit would turn Istanbul into a Christian city. Blunt also claimed that the British empire, lacking the hatred of Muslims of the Austrians, the Russians or the French, could become the protector of the world’s Muslim populations in Asia. In patronising and imperial ways, Blunt seemed to care about the future of Muslims. He was a supporter and friend of leading Muslim reformists such as Al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh, and served as an intermediary between European intellectual circles and Muslim reformists.

Around the same time that Blunt was writing, the influential French intellectual Ernest Renan formulated a very negative view of Islam, especially in regard to science and civilisation. Renan saw Islam as a Semitic religion that would impede the development of science and rationality. His ideas symbolised the racialisation of Muslims via their religion. Of course, Renan was making this argument in Paris, which ruled over large parts of Muslim North Africa and West Africa. His ideas helped to rationalise French colonial rule. Al-Afghani and many other Muslim intellectuals wrote rebuttals of Renan’s arguments, while being supported by Blunt. But Renan enjoyed more success in creating a distracting narrative of a separate Islamic civilisation versus a Western, Christian civilisation.

European elites’ claims of a Western civilising mission, and the superiority of the Christian-Western civilisation, were important to the colonial projects. European intellectuals took up vast projects of classifying humanity into hierarchies of race and religion. It was only in response to this chauvinistic assertion that Muslim intellectuals fashioned a counter-narrative of Islamic civilisation. In an attempt to assert their dignity and equality, they emphasised the past glory, modernity and civility of ‘the Muslim world’. These Muslim opponents of European imperial ideology – of the white race’s civilisational superiority over Muslims and other coloured races – were the first Pan-Islamists.

During the early 20th century, Muslim reformers began to cultivate a historical narrative that emphasised a shared civilisation, with a golden age in Islamic science and art, and its subsequent decline. This idea of a holistic Muslim history was a novel creation fashioned directly in response to the idea of a Western civilisation and the geopolitical arguments of Western/white racial unity. Like the early generation of Pan-African and Pan-Asian intellectuals, Muslim intellectuals responded to European chauvinism and Western orientalism with their own glorious history and civilisation. Throughout the 20th century, the great Muslim leaders such as Turkey’s Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Nasser in Egypt, Iran’s Mohammad Mosaddeq and Indonesia’s Sukarno were all secular nationalists, but all of them needed and used this notion of a glorious history of Muslim civilisation to talk back against ideologies of white supremacy. Nationalism eventually triumphed, and during the 1950s and ’60s the idea of Islam as a force in world affairs also faded from Western journalism and scholarship.

Pan-Islamic ideologies did not resurface again until the 1970s and ’80s, and then with a new character and tone. They returned as an expression of discontent with the contemporary world. After all, gone were the heady days of mid-20th-century optimism about modernisation. The United Nations had failed to solve existential issues. Post-colonial nation-states had not brought liberty and prosperity to most of the world’s Muslims. Meanwhile, Europe, the US and the Soviet Union showed little concern for the suffering of Muslim peoples. Islamist parties such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan appeared, maintaining that the colonisation of Palestine and the tribulations of poverty required a new form of solidarity.

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 proved a historic moment. To condemn the status quo, Khomeini appealed to this new form of Pan-Islamism. Yet, his Iran and its regional rival Saudi Arabia both privileged the national interests of their states. So there has never been a viable federative vision of this new Pan-Islamic solidarity. Unlike Pan-Africanism, which idealised black-skinned populations living in solidarity within post-colonial Africa, Pan-Islamism rests on a sense of victimhood without a practical political project. It is less about real plans to establish a Muslim polity than about how to end the oppression and discrimination shared by an imagined global community.

The calls for global Muslim solidarity can never be understood by looking at religious texts or Muslim piety. It is developments in modern intellectual and geopolitical history that have generated and shaped Pan-Islamic views of history and the world. Perhaps their crucial feature is the idea of the West as a place with its own historical narrative and enduring political vision of global hegemony. The Soviet Union, the US, the EU – all the global Western projects of the 20th century imagine a superior West and its hegemony. Early Pan-Islamic intellectuals developed Muslim narratives of a historical global order as a strategy to combat imperial discourses about their inferiority, which suffused colonial metropoles, orientalist writings and European social sciences. There simply could not be a Pan-Islamic narrative of the global order without its counterpart, the Western narrative of the world, which is equally tendentious as history.

Ideas of Western and Islamic worlds seem like enemies in the mirror. We should not let the colonisers of the late-19th century set the terms of today’s discussion on human rights and good governance. As long as we accept this tendentious opposition between ‘the West’ and ‘the Muslim world’, we are still captives to colonisation and the failures of decolonisation. In simply recognising and rejecting these terms of discussion, we can be free to move forward, to think about one another and the world in more realistic and humane ways. Our challenge today is to find a new language of rights and norms that is not captive to the fallacies of Western civilisation or its African, Asian and Muslim alternatives. Human beings, irrespective of their colour and religion, share a single planet and a connected history, without civilisational borders. Any forward path to overcome current injustices and problems must rely on our connections and shared values, rather than civilisational tribalism.

The Little-Known Story Of The Islamic Christmas Tree

Not many people know that the Quran features a tree in the narrative of Jesus’ birth.

When I was growing up, I always wanted a Christmas tree in our family home but unfortunately for me, this was an idea my parents staunchly resisted. Once, I even offered to make a homemade one but my parents wouldn’t entertain the idea because “we were Muslim.”

We weren’t very strict Muslims, but we were practicing, and a Christmas tree was seen as a contradiction to our religious values back then. I wasn’t alone either; most of my Muslim friends have a similar story to tell. Fast forward years later, and the same parents are now gifting Christmas presents to their grandchildren.

So what exactly was the problem back then with the Christmas tree? Upon reflection, this “no compromise” position is likely to have been wrapped up with the insecurities and identity politics of my parents being new migrants.

In general these attitudes are starting to wane amongst Muslims, as it seems more are enjoying cultural elements of Christmas in the U.K. and in America too, particularly younger generations. Some see the cultural tradition of giving and sharing during Christmas as compatible with Islamic values. Given how huge Christmas is in the West (and practically unavoidable), many do not want to miss out on the fun either.

However, the Christmas tree in particular is still met with resistance by many Muslim families (and non-Muslims too, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, who don’t celebrate any aspect of Christmas) as it is well known that the Christmas tree has European pagan origins. The pagan practice of bringing in something evergreen into the home was thought to ward off evil spirits, and this didn’t gain popularity as an adapted Christian custom until the 17th and 18th centuries.

Because of this pagan history, some Muslims have sought to avoid having a Christmas tree in their home for fear of deifying anything other than God. This, coupled with anxieties around maintaining their heritage in a non-Muslim society, means that it is still rare to find Muslims who will put up a Christmas tree.

But can religious literacy in Quranic narratives soften attitudes towards this? What many Muslims don’t reflect on (or know about) is the concept of an Islamic Christmas tree. What I mean by this is the tree featured in the Quranic account of Jesus’ birth in chapter Mary (Surah 19). In this narrative, Jesus is born under a tree, which is an integral part of the Islamic “nativity scene” and story. This is an Islamic Christmas tree of sorts; a tree that can be used to remind us of the story of Jesus’ birth.

If we were to imagine replacing the traditional Christmas conifer with this tree, what would it look like? According to the Quran, the tree is a date palm, which has both Mary and baby Jesus resting beneath it. The tree is bearing fruit at the time of Jesus’ birth. It also features spring water toward its base, which miraculously appears for Mary to drink from.

What strikes me is the Islamic Christmas tree and nativity scene indicate a very non-European cultural setting. This highlights how far current images of Christmas actually are from the real geographical location of the nativity story. Even in Middle Eastern countries, it’s often a European Christmas tree and version of Christmas that is celebrated in hotels or malls during December.

Has Christmas as we know it in the West become disconnected with its Middle Eastern roots? Is this an example of why citizens in Western nations generally lack empathy or solidarity with issues taking place in the Middle East – because Christmas itself has become de-Middle Easternized?

What if celebrations were to reconnect and “turn back” toward the birthplace of the nativity? Perhaps this could serve as a powerful reality check of the cognitive dissonance at work in Western societies during Christmas.

On the one hand, we have Western nations relentlessly bombing this part of the world, adding to the biggest refugee crisis we have seen in decades. These refugees in turn have largely been met with hostility and outright xenophobia. On the other hand, during Christmas, we all engage in celebrating the story of Jesus’ birth, where we commemorate and show empathy with a migrating Middle Eastern family desperately seeking refuge.

If the Islamic Christmas tree and nativity scene can help people engage further with the Middle East – and even specifically in the holy land of Jesus’ birth – this could be a force for good. Geographically, it won’t be seen in Western countries as a detached distant place with problems that are “over there.” The connection would be brought much closer to home, possibly reducing inconsistent outlooks.

I am not arguing here that we should erase any European cultural Christmas practices. Nor is this an argument for Muslims to create their own ritual of getting a Christmas tree. Even the Bible seems to look down on such pagan practices, so people should choose wisely what they want for their families.

What I am trying to convey is that although the “Christmas spirit” can be everywhere, the origins are not in a department store or in snowy Lapland, Finland. The origins are in the Middle East, a place with an ongoing horror story in dire need of the world’s humanitarian assistance. Maybe if Christmas wasn’t so devoid of this identity then my own Muslim parents wouldn’t have seen it solely as a Western cultural celebration, as unrelated to their Muslim background.

Religious literacy of Quranic narratives can help reduce a blindness amongst Muslims around commonalities that we share with others. This can enhance an openness to positively share Islam in a way that is relevant and can bring a fresh perspective to interfaith dialogue and bridge building.

The Islamic narrative of Jesus’ birth can anchor the well-known Christian one and reminds us that the Quran places Jesus and Mary beneath a “Christmas tree.” They are described in the Quran as a “token” or a “sign” for all peoples, so perhaps their embodiment of love and peace for all are Christmas presents to the world.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

Mariam Sheikh Hakim

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-islamic-christmas-tree-the-other-perspective_us_58322a54e4b0eaa5f14d4730

Dünya Eşitsizliğini Anlamak

Zenginlikte, yoksullukta ve büyüme örüntülerinde görülen bu muazzam farklılıkları neyle açıklayabiliriz? Neden Batı Avrupalı ülkeler ve onların Avrupalı yerleşimcilerle dolu kolonileri 19. yüzyılda neredeyse hiç geriye bakmadan büyümeye başladılar? Amerika’daki kalıcı eşitsizlik sıralamasını neyle açıklayabiliriz? Neden Doğu Asya’nın büyük kısmı baş döndürücü oranlarda ekonomik büyüme gösterirken Sahra-altı Afrika ve Ortadoğu’daki ülkeler Batı Avrupa’da görülen türden bir ekonomik büyüme göstermede başarısız oldular?

Dünya eşitsizliğinin muazzam boyutlarından, önemli sonuçlar doğurmasından ve son derece belirgin örüntülere sahip olmasından ötürü, genel kabul gören bir açıklaması olduğu düşünülebilir. Fakat öyle değil. Sosyal bilimcilerin zenginlik ve yoksulluğun kökenleri için öne sürdüğü çoğu hipotez hiç de işe yaramıyor ve duruma ikna edici bir açıklama getirmekten uzak.


**

Kültür hipotezi

Genel kabul görmüş diğer bir kuram olan kültür hipotezi, zenginliği kültürle ilişkilendirir. Kültür hipotezi, tıpkı coğrafya hipotezi gibi, en azından Protestan Reformu’nun ve kamçıladığı Protestan ahlakının Batı Avrupa’nın modern sanayi toplumunun yükselişini kolaylaştıran anahtar bir rol oynadığını öne süren büyük Alman sosyoloğu Max Weber’e kadar götürülebilecek seçkin bir silsileye sahiptir. Kültür hipotezi artık temellerini yalnızca dine dayandırmıyor, başka inançlara, değerlere ve ahlak anlayışlarına da vurgu yapıyor.

Alenen dile getirilmesi siyaseten doğru olmasa da, çoğu insan hâlâ Afrikalıların düzgün bir iş ahlâkından yoksun oldukları, büyüye-büyücülüğe inanmaya devam ettikleri ya da Batı’nın yeni teknolojilerine ayak diredikleri için fakir olduklarını düşünmeyi sürdürüyor. Ayrıca çoğu kişi, insanlarının hem doğaları gereği sefih ve meteliksiz hem de “İber” ya da “mañana” kültüründen mustarip olmaları nedeniyle Latin Amerika’nın asla zengin olamayacağına da inanıyor. Elbette, bugün Çin, Hong Kong ve Singapur’daki büyümenin lokomotifi olarak Çin’deki iş ahlakı göklere çıkarılsa da zamanında çoğu kişi Çin kültürünün ve Konfüçyus değerlerinin ekonomik büyümeye ters düştüğünü düşünüyordu.

Kültür hipotezi dünya eşitsizliğini anlamada işe yarar mı? Hem evet, hem de hayır. Kültürle ilişkili sosyal normlar önem taşıdıkları, değiştirilmesi zor oldukları ve bazen de bu kitabın dünya eşitsizliğine getirdiği açıklamayı yani kurumsal farklılıkları destekledikleri için, evet. Ancak kültürün din, ulusal ahlak, Afrika ya da Latin değerleri gibi sıklıkla vurgulanan yönleri bu noktaya nasıl geldiğimizi ve dünya eşitsizliğinin neden süreklilik gösterdiğini anlamak için hiç de önem taşımadığı için, büyük ölçüde hayır. İnsanların birbirlerine ne ölçüde güvendikleri ya da işbirliği yapabildikleri gibi diğer hususlar da önem taşır ancak bunlar çoğunlukla kurumların ürünüdür, bağımsız bir nedenin değil.
**
Gelin, kültür hipotezi meraklılarının gözde bölgelerinden birine, Ortadoğu’ya göz atalım. Ortadoğu çoğunlukla Müslüman ülkelerden oluşur ve daha önce belirttiğimiz gibi, bunlar arasında petrolü olma “yanlar çok fakirdir. Petrol üreticileri zengindir fakat bu beklenmedik zenginlik Suudi Arabistan ve Kuveyt’te çok yönlü modern ekonomilerin oluşmasına yol açmamıştır. Peki, bu gerçekler din faktörünün önem taşıdığını göstermez mi? Makul görünmesine karşın bu arguman da doğru değildir. Evet, Suriye ve Mısır gibi ülkeler fakirdir ve nüfuslarının büyük çoğunluğu Müslümandır. Fakat bu ülkeler zenginliğin oluşumunda çok daha fazla önem taşıyan başka konularda da sistematik farklılıklar gösterirler. Her şeyden önce hepsi de gelişimlerini yoğun bir biçimde ve olumsuz yönde şekillendiren Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun eski eyaletleriydi. Osmanlı idaresinin çöküşünün ardından Ortadoğu, yine, gelişimlerinin önüne set çeken İngiliz ve Fransız sömürge imparatorluklarının hâkimiyetine geçti. Bağımsızlıklarının ardından büyük ölçüde eski sömürge dünyasının kurallarına göre hareket ederek hiyerarşik, otoriter siyasal rejimler kurdular. Bu rejimlerin birkaç siyasal ve ekonomik kurumu, ileride tartışacağımız gibi, ekonomik başarının elde edilmesinde hayati bir önem taşıyordu. Bu gelişim çizgisinde büyük ölçüde Osmanlı ve Avrupa hâkimiyeti tarihi belirleyici oldu. Ortadoğu’da İslam dini ve yoksulluk arasındaki ilişki büyük ölçüde düzmecedir.

Ortadoğu’nun ekonomik rotasını belirlemede kültürel etkenlerden ziyade bu tarihsel olayların oynadığı rol, 1805-1848 yılları arasında Muhammed Ali idaresindeki Mısır gibi, geçici olarak Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun ve Avrupalı güçlerin elinden kurtulan Ortadoğu’nun bazı bölgelerinin hızlı bir ekonomik değişim rotası izleyebilmesinde de görülebilir. Muhammed Ali, Napoleon Bonaparte’ın komutasında Mısır’ı işgal eden Fransız kuvvetlerinin geri çekilmesinin ardından yönetime el koydu. O tarihte Osmanlı’nın Mısır bölgesi üstündeki otorite zafiyetinden istifade ederek şu ya da bu şekilde Nasır’ın öncülüğündeki 1952 Mısır Devrimi’ne dek hüküm sürecek kendi hanedanlığını kurmayı başardı. Zorlayıcı nitelikte olmalarına karşın Muhammed Ali’nin reformları devlet bürokrasisini, orduyu ve vergi sistemini modernize ederek Mısır’ın büyümesini sağladı. Ayrıca tarımda ve sanayide de büyüme kaydedildi. Ancak bu modernizasyon süreci ve büyüme Ali’nin ölümüyle son buldu ve Mısır, Batı’nın etkisi altına girdi.

**
Acaba Avrupalılar iş ahlakları, yaşam görüşleri, Yahudi-Hıristiyan değerleri ya da sahip oldukları Roma mirası nedeniyle bir biçimde daha mı üstündürler? Nüfusun büyük çoğunluğunu Avrupa kökenli halkların oluşturduğu Batı Avrupa ve Kuzey Amerika’nın dünyanın en müreffeh bölgesi olduğu bir gerçektir. Belki de bu zenginliğin nedeni –ve kültür hipotezinin son kalesi– Avrupa’nın üstün kültür mirasıdır. Yazık ki, kültür hipotezinin bu versiyonu da açıklayıcı olmaktan en az diğerleri kadar uzaktır. Kanada ve Birleşik Devletler nüfusuna kıyasla Arjantin ve Uruguay nüfusunun daha büyük bölümü Avrupa kökenlidir; fakat bu ülkelerin ekonomik performansı tatminkâr olmaktan çok uzaktır. Oysa Japonya ve Singapur’daki Avrupa kökenli yerleşimciler hiçbir zaman bir tutamdan fazla olmamıştır fakat Batı Avrupa’nın pek çok ülkesi kadar müreffehtirler.

**
Ekonomik ve siyasal sisteminin çoğu eksik yönlerine rağmen Çin son 30 yılın en hızlı büyüyen ülkesidir. Çin’de Mao Zedung’un ölümüne kadarki yoksulluğun Çin kültürüyle hiçbir ilgisi yoktu; bu yoksulluk Mao’nun ekonomiyi örgütleme ve siyaseti idare etmede kullandığı feci yöntemden kaynaklanıyordu. 1950’lerde Büyük İleri Atılım’ı, kitlesel açlığa ve kıtlığa yol açan sert bir sanayileşme politikasını benimsedi. 1960’larda entelektüellere, eğitimli insanlara; yani partiye bağlılığından şüphe duyulan herkese kitlesel olarak zulmedilmesine yol açan Kültür Devrimi’ni başlattı. Bu da korkuya, toplumun yetenek ve kaynaklarında büyük bir kayba yol açtı. Aynı şekilde, Çin’in günümüzdeki büyümesinin de Çin değerleriyle ya da Çin’deki kültürel değişimle hiçbir ilgisi yoktur; Mao Zedung’un ölümünün ardından yavaş yavaş sosyalist ekonomik politikaları ve kurumları terk eden Deng Xiaoping ve yandaşlarının önce tarımda ardından sanayide uyguladığı reformların zincirlerinden kurtardığı ekonomik dönüşüm sürecinin bir sonucudur.

**
Cehalet hipotezi dünya eşitsizliğini açıklayabilir mi? Acaba Batı Avrupalı liderler nispeten daha başarılı olmalarından da anlaşılacağı gibi daha iyi bilgilendirilmiş ya da tavsiye almışlardır da, Afrika ülkeleri kendi liderleri ülkelerini yoksulluğa sürükleyen aynı hatalı yönetim anlayışına eğilim gösterdikleri için mi dünyanın geri kalanından daha fakirdir? Sonuçlarını yanlış kestirdikleri için talihsiz politikalar izlemiş liderlere dair meşhur örnekler olsa da, cehalet dünya eşitsizliğinin en iyi ihtimalle küçük bir bölümüne açıklama getirebilir.

**
1971’deki Gana Başbakanı Kofi Busia deneyimi, cehalet hipotezinin ne denli yanıltıcı olabileceğini ortaya koyar. Busia tehlikeli bir ekonomik krizle yüz yüze kalmıştı. 1969’da iktidara gelmesinin ardından kendinden önceki Nkrumah gibi sürdürülemez bir genişlemeci ekonomik politika izledi, pazarlama komiteleri ve aşırı değerlenmiş döviz kuru sayesinde çeşitli fiyat kontrolleri uyguladı. Busia, Nkrumah’ın rakibi olmasına ve demokratik bir yönetim sürdürmesine karşın ülkesinde benzer nitelikte birçok siyasal kısıtlamayla karşılaştı. Nkrumah gibi onun ekonomi politikaları da “cahilliğinden” ve bu politikaların ekonomi için iyi olduğunu ya da ülkeyi geliştirmenin ideal bir yolu olduğunu düşündüğü için benimsenmedi. Bu politikalar tercih edildi; çünkü bunlar Busia’nın hoşnut tutulması gereken, siyasal bakımdan güçlü gruplara –örneğin kentsel alanlardakilere– kaynak aktarmasına olanak sağlayan politikalardı. Fiyat kontrolleri tarıma baskı yaptı, kentsel alanlardaki seçmen bölgelerine ucuz yiyecek sağladı ve hükümet harcamalarını finanse etmek için gelir oluşturdu. Ancak bu kontroller sürdürülemez nitelikteydi. Gana kısa bir süre sonra bir dizi ödemeler dengesi krizi ve döviz darlığıyla boğuşmaya başladı. Bu ikilemler karşısında, 27 Aralık 1971’de Uluslararası Para Fonu’yla, ağır bir devalüasyon da içeren bir anlaşma imzaladı.

IMF, Dünya Bankası ve tüm uluslararası camia, anlaşmada yer alan reformları uygulaması için Busia’ya baskıda bulundu. Uluslararası kurumlar keyiften pek farkında olmasalar da Busia büyük bir siyasal kumar oynadığını biliyordu. Devalüasyonun doğrudan sonucu Gana’nın başkenti Akra’da baş gösteren ve Yarbay Acheampong komutasındaki ordu Busia’yı devirinceye kadar kontrol altına alınamayan ayaklanma ve hoşnutsuzluk oldu; Acheampong’un ilk işi devalüasyona son vermekti. Cehalet hipotezi, yoksulluk sorununu “çözmek” için hazır bir öneriyle gelmesiyle kültür ve coğrafya hipotezlerinden ayrılır: Eğer cehalet sorunumuz varsa aydınlanmış, bilgili yöneticiler ve siyasetçiler bizi bu durumdan kurtarabilir; doğru tavsiyelerle ve siyasetçileri hangi ekonomi politikasının iyi olduğuna ikna ederek tüm dünyada refah “inşa” edebiliriz. Busia deneyimi, bir kez daha, piyasa başarısızlıklarını azaltacak ve ekonomik büyümeyi teşvik edecek politikaları hayata geçirmenin önündeki asıl engelin siyasetçilerin cehaleti değil, içinde bulundukları toplumun siyasal ve ekonomik kurumlarının onlara sunduğu teşvikler ve getirdikleri kısıtlamalar olduğu gerçeğinin altını çizmektedir.

Cehalet hipotezi hâlâ pek çok iktisatçı arasında ve –neredeyse her şeyi bir yana bırakıp refahı nasıl inşa edeceklerine odaklanan– Batılı siyaset çevrelerinde geniş ölçüde kabul görüyorsa da yalnızca işe yaramayan bir başka hipotezden ibarettir. Ne dünya genelinde refahın kökenlerini ne de etrafımızda olan biteni –örneğin neden Birleşik Devletler ve İngiltere değil de Meksika ve Peru gibi bazı ülkelerin yurttaşlarının çoğunu yoksulluğa sürükleyecek kurum ve politikaları seçtiklerini ya da neden Sahra-altı Afrika’nın neredeyse tamamının ve Orta Amerika’nın büyük bölümünün Batı Avrupa ve Doğu Asya’ya kıyasla bu denli yoksul olduğunu– açıklayabilir.

Ülkelerin kendilerini yoksulluğa mahkûm eden kurumsal örüntülerden kurtulup bir ekonomik büyüme çizgisi tutturmayı başarmaları, cahil liderlerinin bir anda daha bilgili ya da daha az çıkarcı olmalarından ya da daha iyi iktisatçılardan tavsiye almalarından kaynaklanmaz.

**
Çin’in komünizmden piyasa teşviklerine geçişini sağlayan daha iyi tavsiyeler ya da ekonominin nasıl işlediğinin daha iyi anlaşılması değildi; siyasetti.

Dünya eşitsizliğini anlamak için öncelikle bazı toplumların neden çok yetersiz ve toplumsal açıdan sakıncalı biçimlerde örgütlendiklerini anlamamız gerektiğini savunacağız. Ülkeler bazen etkili kurumlar hayata geçirmeyi ve zenginliğe erişmeyi de başarırlar; fakat ne yazık ki, bunlar nadiren görülen durumlardır. Çoğu iktisatçı ve siyasetçi “meseleyi doğru anlamaya” odaklanır. Oysa asıl odaklanılması gereken yoksul ülkelerin neden “meseleyi yanlış anladıklarına” açıklama getirmektir. Konuyu yanlış anlamak genellikle ne cehaletle ne de kültürle ilgilidir. İleride göreceğimiz gibi, bu ülkeler iktidardakiler yoksulluğa yol açacak seçimler yaptıkları için yoksuldur. Meseleyi hata ya da cehalet yüzünden değil kasten yanlış anlarlar. Bunu anlamak için iktisadın ve yapılması gerekenleri söyleyen uzman tavsiyelerinin ötesine geçip kararların gerçekte nasıl alındığı, kimin aldığı ve bu insanların neden bu kararları aldığı incelenmelidir. Bu siyasete ve siyasal süreçlere ilişkin bir çalışmadır. İktisat genellikle siyaseti göz ardı eder fakat siyaseti anlamak dünya eşitsizliğini açıklamak için elzemdir. İktisatçı Abba Lerner’ın 1970’lerde belirttiği gibi, “İktisat hallolmuş siyasal problemleri kendine çalışma alanı olarak seçerek Sosyal Bilimlerin Kraliçesi unvanını aldı.”

Zenginliğe ulaşmanın bazı temel siyasal problemleri çözmeye bağlı olduğunu savunacağız. Bunun nedeni tamamen iktisadın siyasal problemleri çözülmüş farz etmesinin dünya eşitsizliği için tatminkâr bir açıklama bulmaya olanak tanımamasıdır. Dünya eşitsizliğinin açıklanması konusunda, farklı türden politikaların ve toplumsal düzenlemelerin ekonomik teşvikleri ve davranışları nasıl etkilediğini anlamak için hâlâ iktisada ihtiyaç vardır. Fakat bunun için siyasete de ihtiyaç vardır.