Anita Anand | The Conundrum Of The Mideast War, As Tradition Is Pitted Against Modernity

The recent aggression against Iran by the United States and Israel, along with Tehran’s response, has led to chaos all over the world. There is suffering, loss of lives and property, and irreversible environmental damage.

Decades of political and economic instability in West Asia and other Islamic countries stem from deep-rooted suspicion and a lack of understanding of two often conflicting worlds: tradition and modernity.

The role of the US in the current situation in West Asia is similar to its role in Afghanistan, as it believes that countries and societies with long-standing traditions can be freed from autocracy under the pretence of restoring democracy, mainly Western-style democracy. The mistake is that this is not as simple as it seems.

Traditional societies emphasise the past over the future, with customs and traditions playing a key role. Such societies do not clearly separate family and business, with the division of labour mainly based on age, gender and social status. Their institutions -- family, religion and education -- all aim to preserve the past without question and often ignore current realities and the future.

British sociologist Anthony Giddens defines modernity as a shorthand term for modern society or industrial civilisation, characterised by a set of attitudes that view the world as open to human transformation; a complex of economic institutions focused on industrial production and market economies; and a range of political institutions, including the nation-state and mass democracy. Together, these make modern society much more dynamic than any previous social order -- one that, unlike traditional cultures, orients itself toward the future rather than the past.

The spread of modernity has been supported by globalisation, which involves the integration of economic, political and social cultures. Communications, through telephony, television broadcasts, news services, and online platforms, have played a vital role in the expansion of globalisation.

Both Iran and Afghanistan are traditional societies that have experienced periods of modernisation over the last 50 years. Yet, they remain predominantly traditional and are governed by Sharia law.

In Iran in 1979, a referendum on transitioning from a monarchy to an Islamic republic was approved by 99.31 per cent of the population. A new theocratic constitution was adopted, and Ayatollah Khomeini, a revolutionary and Shia cleric who had lived for decades in exile in France, became the Supreme Leader. Iran’s modernising, capitalist economy was replaced by populist Islamic economic and cultural policies. Industries were nationalised, laws and schools Islamised, and Western influence was restricted.

Afghanistan has experienced extensive warfare since the 1970s, including coups, invasions, insurgencies, and civil wars. In 1978, a Communist revolution established a socialist state (itself a response to the dictatorship after a coup d’état in 1973), and subsequent infighting led the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan in 1979. The Soviets finally withdrew in 1989, and the ensuing civil war overthrew the socialist republic and created the Islamic State of Afghanistan. There was a second civil war between the Mujahideen and Islamist faction groups. By 1996, the Taliban controlled most of the country.

During this period, thousands of Afghans fled their homeland, many to neighbouring Pakistan and Iran, and those who could afford it, to distant lands in North America, Europe and Australia.

Since 2001, the United States alone has spent trillions of dollars in Afghanistan over a 20-year period.

Was it for nothing? Not really. Much of this money was allocated for reconstruction, as the economy had to be rebuilt after two decades of destruction. A constitution was adopted by the Loya Jirgas (local groups), and a legal system was created. As a frequent visitor to that country between 2004 and 2016, I heard stories and saw people experiencing freedom for the first time. Girls and young women attended school and university, earned degrees, and worked outside the home.

Not all Afghans welcomed the changes, especially those living in remote areas who never left the country during decades of oppression. They relied on their traditional justice systems and believed that Western concepts of democracy, rights, and law were unfamiliar to their culture and traditions. And not appropriate or needed.

In Iran, over the last few decades, there has been consistent opposition to the ruling regime, advocating for more human rights and freedom, and urging their government to negotiate with the West on economic sanctions and the nuclear programme. Women have protested simply to remove their headcovers, facing beatings, arrests, and even death.

It was no surprise that after the death of the 86-year-old Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the US-Israeli attack on his personal compound, Iranians were both mourning and celebrating.

His clerical leadership of the Islamic Republic lasted over 37 years. Any hope that a more moderate leader would be chosen was dashed with the appointment of his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, as his successor, who is said to be more rigid than his father.

The suspicion and rejection of Westernisation or modernity is common in Iran under clerical rule and Afghanistan under the Taliban. It is perceived as alien to Islam’s traditions. While some citizens want aspects of modernity, they aren’t willing to accept what all comes with it, especially if it contradicts their traditional beliefs.

However, many seek freedom to make choices, which is restricted by tradition and religion.

How, then, can reconciliation occur? As both countries are governed by allegiance to a single religion, Islam, there isn’t much room for manoeuvring. It’s difficult to be balanced when there is one leg in tradition and one in modernity. We have to choose.

There is an East African saying: “When elephants fight, the grass suffers.” The ongoing conflict in the Middle East and West Asia is unlikely to end soon. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens continue to suffer.

The writer is a development and communications consultant