I have to admit, I was slightly skeptical of this book before I even read it. In the world of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, books which make it on the the nytimes best seller list are often books that you don't want to read. "Infidel" by Ayaan Hiri Ali and "Because They Hate Us" by Brigitte Gabriel are just two examples of some of hate-filled tomes out there, books that actively seek to divide rather than unite, and spread fear rather than actual information.
I was in for a pleasant surprise. Despite being on the New York Times best selling list for over three years, Three Cups of Tea actually has a positive message about respecting cultural diversity, the power of education, and bringing people together.
The story is about Greg Mortenson, a professional climber who finds himself indebted to an isolated Balti community, after members of the community save his life after a near death experience in climbing K2. During his convalescence, Greg learns that this village in the rugged frontier of northwestern Pakistan is in dire need of a school, and our hero becomes determined to raise funds and provide the community with what they desperately need.
The book follows Greg as he struggles to raise money for the school--and many more to follow--while trying to keep his life together while shuttling between the United States and Pakistan. What I found to be most inspiring about his story was that it wasn't one of those tales of the super achiever who establishes an NGO by the age of 25 and wins the Nobel by the age of 32. Most of this story takes place after Greg is 35, and he doesn't really make a name for himself and his amazing work until his 40s. For the first half of the book, when he is struggling to raise money for the first school, he is working terrible hours as a nurse, sleeping out of his car, and barely scraping enough money together to eat a decent breakfast. This is the kind of hero that I can get behind. Throughout the story, you also get snippets of his imperfection. He clearly doesn't get the chance to spend much time with his family, he is notorious for being chronically late, and his preoccupation with his work gives him little time to take care of his own health. All of this, again, only reinforces my admiration for him. He is quite human, and his own story is a reminder of the great sacrifices that one has to make when one, quite literally, dedicates their life to a cause.
Most importantly, I can really get behind Greg's perspective on combating the demonization of Muslims in the post-9/11 climate. Greg was in Pakistan on September 11, 2001. On the Friday following the attacks, one of the new schools was meant to open. However, the weight of the attacks--and the global apprehension of what would happen next--hung heavily, dampening what should have been a celebratory atmosphere. During the inaugural speech, Syed Abbas--a Shia religious leaders who had become one of Greg's closest and most important allies in his campaign to build schools--spoke of great sorrow and paid his condolences to the American people.
"I request America to look into our hearts," Abbas continued, his voice straining with emotion, "and see that the great majority of us are not terrorists, but good and simple people. Our land is stricken with poverty because we are without education. But today, another candle of knowledge has been lit. In the name of Allah the Almighty, may it light our way out of the darkness we find ourselves in."
"It was an incredible speech," Mortenson says. "And by the time Syed Abbas had finished he had the entire crowd in tears. I wish all the Americans who think 'Muslim' is just another way of saying 'terrorist' could have been there that day. The true core tenants of Islam are justice, tolerance, and charity, and Syed Abbas represented the moderate center of Muslim faith eloquently."
I think this book is a great read for anyone looking for inspiration, adventure, or heartwarming moments of inter-faith collaboration. However, I can't recommend this book without giving this warning: the writing is terrible. I know it seems strange to give such a recommendation, and then admit that the writing would make some articles in playboy look like Pulitzer material. Lucky for Greg, his story is strong enough that I can overlook the horrific metaphors, cliche-ridden descriptions, and even orientalist descriptions of some of the characters. Even better for him, Greg didn't actually write it. It would be forgivable if writing was not his forte--he clearly has some other skills to offer. Whats incredible is that it looks like they hired David Oliver Relin, a professional writer, to write the bulk of the book. Here are a few choice lines that made me reach for the bag in the backseat of the plane:
When Greg encounters his ex-girlfriend: "He forced himself to look away from Marina's lips and let his gaze settle on her eyes, but thought better of that and jerked his own down. Those, too, were too dangerous."
On the Balti People: "The Balti had originally migrated southwest from Tibet...and their Buddhism had been scoured away as they traveled over the rocky passes and replaced by a religion more attuned to the severity of their new landscape--Shiite Islam."
Relin also uses the word "infidel" approximately 7,000 times to describe how Pakistanis and Afghanis must have viewed Greg. This really got under my skin, especially when one of the objectives of the book seemed to be to break American stereotypes of Muslims. One of the most prevalent stereotypes of Muslims is that they are fire-breathing theocrats, ready to condemn and persecute "infidels" at a moments notice. This, as Greg astutely points out, is not at all an accurate picture of Muslims, whose faith in fact preaches tolerance and acceptance of nonbelievers. The use of the term "infidel" over "nonbeliever" seemed to me a deliberate choice by Relin to "spice up" the narrative, attempting to add additional "Eastern Allure" to the already captivating story, which shouldn't have been dragged down by a cheap orientalist trick. It was not only offensive, but I think it is counterproductive to the overall purpose of the book which was to break these pernicious stereotypes of Muslims as "The Other."
Like I said, its a damn good thing the story is strong enough to shine through. Give it a read, you won't regret it. Just be prepared to roll your eyes a few times.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Decline of Democracy? Offer a test drive
In a January Economist article entitled "Democracy's Decline: Crying for Freedom" the author writes, "Given that democracy is unlikely to advance, these days, through the military or economic preponderance of the West, its best hope lies in winning a genuinely open debate. In other words, wavering countries, and skeptical societies, must be convinced that political freedom works best."
The author is right in this description of the problem. In a world of American blunders and rising interest in the Chinese and Russian systems, democracy is no longer seen as the only option. In a world where countries can be world powers without empowering their citizens, it is not so clear that we have reached the end of history. So in this new buffet of political systems, how does democracy best prove itself? The Economist asserts that the strongest argument for democracy is pointing out the the negatives of a non-democratic system. "Democracy may not yield perfect policies, but it ought to guard against all manners of ills, ranging from outright tyranny to larceny at the public expense.
I respectfully disagree. I think it is a poor argument of a protagonist to simply point out the weaknesses of the antagonist. This is especially true of societies in which all too often, people criticize the status quo without providing productive alternatives. The better argument is to take the car salesmen approach: allowing individual citizens to "test drive" democracy.
Just like any good salesman, advocates of democracy must give citizens of non-democratic societies an opportunity to "test drive" the democratic system. But I am not talking about voting in elections, which can all to often be easily corrupted. I am also not talking about participating in protests, which can often be brutally received by regimes, forcing some cynics to link democracy with bloodshed. What I am talking about is providing an opportunity for a citizen to identify a problem in their community, mobilize, advocate, and bring about positive results. This is the essence of democracy--citizens taking their fates, and the welfare of their community, into their own hands.
Yet, grassroots advocacy's humble nature causes it to be overlooked by international donors, who are distracted by its more glamorous yet all the more fallible sister, elections. Elections are obviously essential to democracies, but they demand a much more refined state of political development in order to be effective. They require strong institutions of the executive and legislative branches, an independent judiciary, clearly stated laws guarding the electoral process, outlining punitive measures for violations, developed political parties, and a plethora of other realities which must be in place in order for the election to actually produce a grain of democratic progress. If these mechanisms aren't in place, an illegitimate and fraudulent election will only produce feelings of disaffection and disillusionment in the populace. And in the fight to sell democracy, a premature election will be a major setback.
Grassroots Advocacy, on the other hand, requires fewer institutions, and brings much larger results in the fight to sell democracy. Operating on the mantra of "start in your backyard" citizen based advocacy can attract individuals who otherwise wouldn't involve themselves in the fray of politics, which in many developing countries, is a synonym for corruption, immorality, and avarice.
I am proud to say that I work for an organization that recognizes the value of this approach. In Jordan, the National Democratic Institute (NDI) worked with three grassroots advocacy organizations to identify problems in their community and launch successful advocacy campaigns. By providing training on identifying citizen priorities, mobilizing supporters, working with decision-makers, and other advocacy campaign skills, NDI provided citizens of Karak, Irbid and the Jordan Valley with the skills necessary to empower themselves and make a difference in their community. This "test drive" taught these citizens more about the power of democracy than voting in Jordan's quasi-legitimate elections ever could. In the town of Karak, for instance, citizens identified the issue of air pollution from a poultry farm as a community concern, worked to mobilize citizens, developed petitions, meet with decision makers, and ultimately brought about the installment of filters in the factory, achieving its advocacy goal of bringing cleaner air to the community. The proof is in the pudding, and the best way to convince a disenchanted populace of the fruits of democracy is to put them in the drivers seat. Through citizens-based advocacy, individuals can actually enjoy the merits of democracy. After all, it is the test drive that will sell the car--not merely the commercials on tv.
The author is right in this description of the problem. In a world of American blunders and rising interest in the Chinese and Russian systems, democracy is no longer seen as the only option. In a world where countries can be world powers without empowering their citizens, it is not so clear that we have reached the end of history. So in this new buffet of political systems, how does democracy best prove itself? The Economist asserts that the strongest argument for democracy is pointing out the the negatives of a non-democratic system. "Democracy may not yield perfect policies, but it ought to guard against all manners of ills, ranging from outright tyranny to larceny at the public expense.
I respectfully disagree. I think it is a poor argument of a protagonist to simply point out the weaknesses of the antagonist. This is especially true of societies in which all too often, people criticize the status quo without providing productive alternatives. The better argument is to take the car salesmen approach: allowing individual citizens to "test drive" democracy.
Just like any good salesman, advocates of democracy must give citizens of non-democratic societies an opportunity to "test drive" the democratic system. But I am not talking about voting in elections, which can all to often be easily corrupted. I am also not talking about participating in protests, which can often be brutally received by regimes, forcing some cynics to link democracy with bloodshed. What I am talking about is providing an opportunity for a citizen to identify a problem in their community, mobilize, advocate, and bring about positive results. This is the essence of democracy--citizens taking their fates, and the welfare of their community, into their own hands.
Yet, grassroots advocacy's humble nature causes it to be overlooked by international donors, who are distracted by its more glamorous yet all the more fallible sister, elections. Elections are obviously essential to democracies, but they demand a much more refined state of political development in order to be effective. They require strong institutions of the executive and legislative branches, an independent judiciary, clearly stated laws guarding the electoral process, outlining punitive measures for violations, developed political parties, and a plethora of other realities which must be in place in order for the election to actually produce a grain of democratic progress. If these mechanisms aren't in place, an illegitimate and fraudulent election will only produce feelings of disaffection and disillusionment in the populace. And in the fight to sell democracy, a premature election will be a major setback.
Grassroots Advocacy, on the other hand, requires fewer institutions, and brings much larger results in the fight to sell democracy. Operating on the mantra of "start in your backyard" citizen based advocacy can attract individuals who otherwise wouldn't involve themselves in the fray of politics, which in many developing countries, is a synonym for corruption, immorality, and avarice.
I am proud to say that I work for an organization that recognizes the value of this approach. In Jordan, the National Democratic Institute (NDI) worked with three grassroots advocacy organizations to identify problems in their community and launch successful advocacy campaigns. By providing training on identifying citizen priorities, mobilizing supporters, working with decision-makers, and other advocacy campaign skills, NDI provided citizens of Karak, Irbid and the Jordan Valley with the skills necessary to empower themselves and make a difference in their community. This "test drive" taught these citizens more about the power of democracy than voting in Jordan's quasi-legitimate elections ever could. In the town of Karak, for instance, citizens identified the issue of air pollution from a poultry farm as a community concern, worked to mobilize citizens, developed petitions, meet with decision makers, and ultimately brought about the installment of filters in the factory, achieving its advocacy goal of bringing cleaner air to the community. The proof is in the pudding, and the best way to convince a disenchanted populace of the fruits of democracy is to put them in the drivers seat. Through citizens-based advocacy, individuals can actually enjoy the merits of democracy. After all, it is the test drive that will sell the car--not merely the commercials on tv.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
"Dreams and Shadows" by Robin Wright
"On a warm spring day in April 1983, I stood across from what had been the United States Embassy in Beirut and watched as rescuers picked through tons of mangled steel and concrete littered with glass shards. Tenderly, emergency crews put salvaged bits of bodies in small blue plastic bags. Forensic experts later matched up the pieces so they could be buried together. More than sixty Americans were killed in that lunchtime bombing. Some of the dead had been my friends."
In this opening paragraph of her book, Wright makes her credentials clear. She has done her time as a field reporter in the turbulent Middle East, covering dozens of wars, interviewing political leaders and outlaws, and producing some of the most important stories on the region. Her book is largely a collection of interviews and stories that she has collected over the last three decades as a field reporter, with a smattering of analysis on the people, movements, and ideologies which are shaping the region. Wright divides the book by countries, allotting a chapter to the Palestinians, Morocco, Iraq and the United States, and two chapters to Iran, Egypt and Lebanon. In each chapter, she provides brief to thorough backgrounds on the history of the country, the current political state, and personal interviews with activists and revolutionaries who are pushing for political and social change.
As a student of Middle East history, I didn't learn many political facts from this book; but I received an education nonetheless. Wright's anecdotes and interviews with notorious revolutionaries, wily politicians and brave dissidents are gripping; and shed light on the political dynamics and division which currently rule the Middle East.
Her anecdotes and on Mahmoud Ahmedinejad reveal a country bumpkin thrust into the corridors of power. Her cold analysis of his half-witted domestic policies--terrifying to pragmatic Iranian clerics and American politicians alike--make you realize that this guy is more of a Dubya than he is Cheney, more of a clueless marionette than a malicious manipulator.
Her interviews with Hassan Nasrallah reveal a a practical politician, who may use fiery rhetoric to whip up popular support, but ultimately possesses an even temper, sharp intellect, and the willingness to strike a deal when the stakes are high enough.
If understanding politics is understanding people, than Wright's book is a must-read for both the laymen reader and the Middle East scholar. While I caught a few historical blips (referring to Iran and Israel as the two pillars of U.S. Foreign Policy, it was actually Iran and Saudi Arabia) I would have to say that Wright hit her mark, producing a fine primer on Middle Eastern politics defined by persistent authoritarians and determined dissenters.
For an alternative review of "Dreams and Shadows" check out this New York Times Review
In this opening paragraph of her book, Wright makes her credentials clear. She has done her time as a field reporter in the turbulent Middle East, covering dozens of wars, interviewing political leaders and outlaws, and producing some of the most important stories on the region. Her book is largely a collection of interviews and stories that she has collected over the last three decades as a field reporter, with a smattering of analysis on the people, movements, and ideologies which are shaping the region. Wright divides the book by countries, allotting a chapter to the Palestinians, Morocco, Iraq and the United States, and two chapters to Iran, Egypt and Lebanon. In each chapter, she provides brief to thorough backgrounds on the history of the country, the current political state, and personal interviews with activists and revolutionaries who are pushing for political and social change.
As a student of Middle East history, I didn't learn many political facts from this book; but I received an education nonetheless. Wright's anecdotes and interviews with notorious revolutionaries, wily politicians and brave dissidents are gripping; and shed light on the political dynamics and division which currently rule the Middle East.
Her anecdotes and on Mahmoud Ahmedinejad reveal a country bumpkin thrust into the corridors of power. Her cold analysis of his half-witted domestic policies--terrifying to pragmatic Iranian clerics and American politicians alike--make you realize that this guy is more of a Dubya than he is Cheney, more of a clueless marionette than a malicious manipulator.
Her interviews with Hassan Nasrallah reveal a a practical politician, who may use fiery rhetoric to whip up popular support, but ultimately possesses an even temper, sharp intellect, and the willingness to strike a deal when the stakes are high enough.
If understanding politics is understanding people, than Wright's book is a must-read for both the laymen reader and the Middle East scholar. While I caught a few historical blips (referring to Iran and Israel as the two pillars of U.S. Foreign Policy, it was actually Iran and Saudi Arabia) I would have to say that Wright hit her mark, producing a fine primer on Middle Eastern politics defined by persistent authoritarians and determined dissenters.
For an alternative review of "Dreams and Shadows" check out this New York Times Review
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)