It is the golden rule of irony that champions of certain virtues are invariably
found to be exceptions to their own dogma. Thus it is that the United States
has squirmed through a sequence of sex scandals involving Bible-thumping
Republicans, while finding that its supposedly democratic government all too
often endorses undemocratic decisions.
The high-and-mighty English, who make fun of the supposedly corrupt French at
every opportunity, quietly ended a corruption investigation into a Saudi arms
deal for their narrow self-interest. In much the same way, supposedly
egalitarian religious
government in Islamic countries all too often perpetuates inequalities, and
embraces authoritarianism at every turn. Bangladesh is the latest tragedy to
unfold in this regard, a shining example of how quickly a progressive
democratic country can turn into an entity bordering on a failed state.
At the heart of this failure, in Bangladesh and elsewhere, is the broader issue
of how poorly the people from Islamic countries compare with those in the rest
of the developing world. What explains the strange stagnation of Islamic
countries in the socio-economic arena? Perusing various reports from
multilateral agencies such as the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank, one is left in no doubt whatsoever that no country run on Islamic
principles has achieved anything spectacular in the past few years.
Rich countries
The easiest among the rich Islamic societies to study is Saudi Arabia. One
single statistic is most telling in detailing the failure of Saudi society to
grow - despite being the largest producer of crude oil in the world, Saudi
Arabia actually imports most of its fuel, eg diesel and refined products such
as lubricants. [1]
The failure of industry is in essence a failure of capitalism. In most
countries where wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few - such as the
"robber barons" period of US history in the early 20th century or today's
Russia - a functioning financial system helped to intermediate risks. This is
not possible in strict Islamic societies as the religion bans usury, thus
disallowing the flow of capital to the people needing it the most, ie, young
entrepreneurs. Faced with uneconomic returns at home, most Middle Eastern
rulers deposit their money at higher rates with European banks.
A second failure in Saudi society is the absence of appropriate education for
restless youth. [2] Religious education, rather than grounding in modern
sciences, remains the norm. Thus while the production of muezzins is
guaranteed, hiring a petroleum engineer can be tricky. In turn, this causes an
excessive reliance on "infidel" immigrants, which in turn creates a multi-tier
society, focusing much of the anger of locals on the wrong targets - the people
who take their jobs, rather than the ones in government and religious schools
who actually caused the situation to emerge.
Religious education also produces famously insular people. A US magazine's poll
of Arab youth found that very few had heard of the Apollo moon landings, and
indeed all of them dismissed such feats as US propaganda. The notion that human
beings could land on the moon would appear far-fetched to anyone who holds the
satellite as a celestial object rather than an astronomical oddity.
The rule of irony with which I started this article holds true here - in the
Dark Ages for Europe, it was Islamic societies that led the world in the
adoption and spread of science and technology. While they cannot claim to have
invented much, as credit goes to the Chinese and Indian civilizations, they
certainly used inventions to their advantage well before the Europeans caught
on.
Poor countries
It is in poor countries that Islamic government fails to the greatest extent. A
cursory look at populations' inequality index (the Gini coefficient) shows that
the world's second- and third-largest Islamic countries, Pakistan and
Bangladesh, have worse indicators than most other developing countries.
In such countries, capital is simply not available to begin with. Added to this
is the issue of misallocation, which I wrote about in a previous article. [3]
In commenting on the Nobel Prize for Grameen bank founder Muhammad Yunus, I
wrote that much of the gains from the system of micro-credit can be wiped out
by political shifts. Sadly, such a shift is now happening in Bangladesh, where
the increased radicalization of the population has caused foreign donors to
scoot. Additionally, tough Islamic laws that the radicals would like to impose
will hit the people who benefit most from micro-credit, namely Bangladeshi
women.
This is where the blind import of Wahhabi principles hurts developing countries
the most. A partial explanation for the misery caused to Afghan people by the
Taliban can be found in their tough rules against women working or even being
seen in public. While such ideas may well suit a resource-rich society like
Saudi Arabia, it simply does not sit well in a resource-poor landscape like
Afghanistan where every labor input must be employed.
Among the countries that have been slipping in and out of authoritarian
governments, only one currently offers me hope, albeit tenuous. That would be
Pakistan, where Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz appears to have the right ideas for
developing his country. These include importing successful Pakistani business
people, rather than their capital alone. That idea owes much to China, where
Deng Xiaoping observed that while overseas Chinese were a prosperous lot, China
itself remained poor. These business people are changing the face of Pakistani
industry, although they have a long way to go before the country can catch up
with the momentum seized by China and India. Structural limitations,
particularly in the area of education, rule of law and physical infrastructure,
remain unsolved.
Exceptions to the rule
The most often cited examples of Islamic countries that have produced
significant improvements in living standards are Malaysia, Indonesia and
Turkey. That observation fails because all three are secular if not democratic
countries. The rule of law, as understood in Western societies, has been a key
factor in their success.
The broader exception to the points raised above have been the successful
Muslim entrepreneurs to emerge across European countries. As I observed in past
posts on the performance of emigres in Europe, Muslims have done extremely well
in Britain, Germany and France, although media attention all too often falls on
the exceptions. Be that as it may, it does push through the point that it is
not the people who fail but rather their system that fails them.
Muslims in open, democratic societies do extremely well; those in closed,
religiously controlled societies do not. It could well be that the future of
the Islamic world lies with the progress of the British Bangladeshi, German
Turk and French Algerian communities.
As with any generalization, this one too is fraught with the potential for
going wrong - namely, that continued adverse media focus actually forces a
self-perpetuating crisis of youngsters turning to extremism. This is perhaps an
area for European governments to focus on, seeing as it is not only their own
futures but also that of the Islamic world that they have responsibility for
overseeing.
The title of this article is with due apologies to America's homily to
capitalism, Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert T Kiyosaki.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
