Is the Middle East Backwards? Or Are We Backwards for Thinking So?

This question has been posed on a variety of subjects in my Politics of the Middle East class and it's challenging to answer.  America is involved with many countries in the Middle East, as both protagonist and antagonist, and it seems as though our mission is to 'change' this region of the world and democratize it.  The Western world's view of a progressive society is one that eventually ends in democracy.  The only issue with this mission, however, is that the Middle East has never been primed for democratic lifestyle.

The history of this region has seen rule from some of the most powerful empires in world history such as the Ottomans, Safavids, etc.  Under these empires, citizens of the region were just subjects.  The Ottomans were admittedly progressive with the liberties that its governors allowed for their subjects but nonetheless, democracy can't thrive in an empire.  As World War I ended and the Ottoman Empire was disassembled, the Middle East became the new hotbed for Western colonial rule.  Great Britain and France carved up the region to their liking (and with a complete disregard for the people living there) and developed an influence that would hold tightly until the likes of Nasser and Gaddafi pushed them out.  Once again, no democracy under colonial rule.

And now in the present day, with the Middle East being the largest exporter of oil in the entire world, we see one dimensional economies with either kings or regimes ruling over the state.  Oil acts as the main hindrance to democratic government, as the state receives revenue from oil sales and therefore does not require for citizen taxes.  No Taxation... No Representation (so don't complain about being taxed America).

With all of these opponents to democracy, though, several countries have seen pleasant ruling at times under regimes.  When citizens do not like the regime they are under, well then you see what we are witnessing now: the Arab Spring.  No one knows what will come of the numerous social uprisings and upheavals of dictators but there is a slim chance that democracy will form because of it.  Arabs are not accustomed to democracy, the Koran and Sharia does not call for it, and they've never been exposed to it, so it may not be our responsibility to try and 'change' these seemingly 'backward' countries.

Religion and the Presidency

In the 2012 presidential race, we as a citizenry could most certainly see an African-American square off against a Mormon.  No, you're not dreaming.  If Mitt Romney wins the election, he would be just the third American president out of 45 that does not fit the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant mold of presidents that we are so used to seeing hung up on the walls in elementary school classrooms.  Just four of the previous presidents have had no official religious affiliation and even they were at least raised Protestant or converted after their time in office.  As the United States moves towards a more socially progressive view when deciding who to vote for, the question I would like to know the answer to is when will religion not matter anymore?

That answer is most likely 'never', much to my disappointment.

Although their beliefs are different from one another, Mormons and Catholics both have come under much scrutiny in presidential elections of the 20th century (because let's be honest, no one would even allow them to show their face in earlier years) and time and again each man proves his worthiness to the role of public office over religious beliefs.  Kennedy spearheaded his 1960 campaign with the mission of proving that he would not be swayed by the papal authority while in office and if he did, he would resign.  People saw that awfully quick and pushed him right into office.  Catholicism now seems a non-factor after Kennedy, with John Kerry catching very little heat for also being Catholic.

Mormonism, on the other hand, is seen in the 21st century as a 'cult'.  It is mocked from coast to coast and even feared by some conservative Christians.  Romney has been criticized for believing in a "false god" and is consistently compared to his Christian counterpart, Rick Perry, by fundamentalists.  But because Romney practices Mormonism does not mean that he will impose their beliefs on the United States if given the opportunity.  I will admit that some Mormon convictions are ludicrous, polygamy and possible prejudice to the African race being a couple examples, but if we as a nation pride ourselves on the separation of church and state, Mitt Romney will do the same.  What the Church of Latter Day Saints preaches is not what we would see him practice in office.  And for liberals who immediately associate conservative religions with the Republican party, you may want to take a look at what church Harry Reid attends on the weekends.

To simply write off a worthy candidate because of religious background is bigotry.  It is close-minded, and there is no place for it in American politics.  Religion is of course an important aspect of most American families but it should not play a role in how one views a leader's worthiness.  We have broken the color barrier, we have cracked and are peeping through the hole of the gender wall, and we should do the same on the religious front as well.  And besides, if you take a look at the other Republican candidates... you may have no choice.