There's a really good book out called The Battle for God that talks about the rise of fundamentalism in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It's a great read, and one of the points it makes is that democracy is something that works best if it grows on its own accord. Western society is the example the author uses in the book; while there was obviously plenty of strife, the Enlightenment grew of its own accord--no outside authority came in and forced anyone to adopt it in its full form. In the Middle East, though, democracy seems to have always been an idea that has been forcibly transplanted, an attempt to stamp the existing society into a mold that had been developed elsewhere, which as has been alluded, doesn't tend to work real well and causes a lot of bad feelings.
Of course, I'm not close to a history buff so correct me if I'm wrong.
Of course, I'm not close to a history buff so correct me if I'm wrong.
) has as nearly as much to do with the issue as religious factionalism does. Even if Sunnis and Shiites could reconcile their differences on a religious basis, one could argue that tribal conflict would simply replace religious conflict! And hey, whadd'ya know, tribal lines often deliniate themselves on religious views too!
