Don't Count Your Chickens Yet

Turmoil in the Middle East shows no sign of abating. If anything, it threatens to get worse. Thousands continue to take to the streets, and stay in the streets, demanding everything from democracy to jobs. Protesters in Tunisia are calling for the resignation of the prime minister and new elections. Tens of thousands in Egypt continue to demand reforms. In Jordan, Iraq, Bahrain, and Yemen, people are calling for better government services and an end to corruption. Even in Saudi Arabia, the bastion of conservative Islam, protesters are popping up.

In their eagerness to report the growing unrest in the region, many in the media are misleading the public. The U.S. government is doing little to correct this. The monarchy in Saudi Arabia, though cautious, is not in jeopardy. The 4,000 people in Jordan who turned out to protest are no real threat to the government there. Compounding the issue is that protesters across the region are not all clamoring for the same things. Some want jobs. Some want an end to corruption. Some want greater autonomy. Some want power. Some want Islamic republics. Some want democracy, at least democracy as they understand it. In Libya, protesters clashed with a government the U.S. opposes. In Bahrain, protesters clashed with a government the U.S. supports. The only thing many of the uprisings have in common is their dissatisfaction with the status quo.

It is not uncommon, indeed it is historically typical, for mass uprisings to lead to authoritarian governments. Demands for power and reform are not demands for liberty. Many groups are well aware that if they pose their resistance in terms of democracy and rights they can garner the support of the U.S.: provided their uprising is in the U.S.'s interest. At the moment, most of the uprisings in the Middle East are in the U.S.'s interest. The results may not be. The toppling of the Shah in 1979 gave us Khomeini. Elections in Gaza gave us Hamas.

Representative governments are just that, representative. They exist to represent the will of the people, whatever the will of the people may be. It can be expected that there will be a push for constitutions in any new democracies that might emerge. The theory behind such a push is that a constitution would cement a democratic victory and prevent backsliding into authoritarian rule. In order to resolve sectarian and ethnic tensions in the absence of a strong central government, a representative scheme would have be devised in which each group or sect would have a seat at the table. That alone should be enough to dampen the high hopes now current in the West. A group that took to the streets to achieve its goals will be unlikely to give those goals away at the bargaining table. If they are to give something up, they will want to be paid.

Democratic governments are not political ends. They are political means. Any democratic governments that emerge in the Middle East will be precarious. Once in place they will face the difficult task of sorting out the grievances that led to the uprisings and meeting the demands of the people. People did not take to the streets in support of a political theory. They took to the streets in response to corruption and ineptitude and out of the desire for better lives. If the new governments prove unable to satisfy the demands of the people, unrest will return. If it does return, there is no way of knowing what the demands would be then. It should be remembered that Hamas gained power by meeting the needs of a people weary at the corrupt and inept rule of the Palestinian Authority.

Constitutions, especially new ones, are flimsy barriers to authoritarianism. Democratic governments are no barrier. The only real guarantor of a democratic government is a democratic people. A democratic government does not create a democratic people. There is very little history of representative government in the Middle East and less tradition. In countries that have never known representative government or individual liberty, democracy will have to be built from scratch.

In some ways, the hardest part is just beginning. In a democratic Middle East, the U.S. and Israel will no longer be able to simply negotiate with the leader of a state. We will have to negotiate with the people as well. People can be much more demanding and unpredictable than a government. Incidents such as the Israeli boarding of an aide ship heading for Gaza, the bulldozing of a Palestinian village, or an errant rocket attack can be minimized and controlled where governments are insulated from the sentiments of the people. A government beholden to the people will not be as insulated.

While we should be optimistic at the events unfolding in the Middle East, it should be kept in mind that democracy does not bring prosperity. There are many poor democracies. Democracy does not end corruption or inefficiency. Experience has shown it is often riddled with both. Democracy does not bring social harmony. Democracies are prone to turmoil. Democracy does not ensure peace. Democracies go to war as well as autocracies. There are few problems in the Middle East that will be solved through democracy. Still, it is a step in the right direction and it should be applauded.

Don't Ask the Monkeys

Researchers at the Oregon National Primate Center conducting studies of fat monkeys have determined that obesity among primates is deleterious to their health. A group of monkeys was fed a steady diet of fatty and sugar laden food in order to make them obese. Some of the monkeys were kept locked in their cages to simulate the lack of physical activity that often accompanies over eating. "We were trying to induce the couch potato style" said one researcher. As expected, the monkeys gained weight. Some became obese. Monkeys were used because, in addition to their similarity to humans, their diet and activity are easily controlled and monitored. More importantly, they do not lie about what they eat.

Several conclusions were made from the study. First, eating poorly and physical inactivity leads to weight increase. Secondly, monkeys, like people, prefer rich, fatty foods and tend to eat when they are bored. Lastly, it was observed that obesity in monkeys leads to health problems such as diabetes.

Arguably, there are few reasons to study obesity. We know what causes it and we know what results from it. The only thing we are not sure of is why people seem complacent about it. Most people who are overweight know they are overweight. With few exceptions, they also know why they are overweight and that being so is not good for their health.

There is really nothing mysterious about the phenomenon of obesity. People are prone to doing things they should not do. They lie when they know that lying is wrong. They watch TV when they know they should be working in the yard. They spend time on facebook when they know they should be doing something else. They eat potato chips by the bag full when they know no good will come from it. The phenomenon of doing something we know is harmful or that we should not do is a subject that has perplexed thinkers for thousands of years. The only thing that has changed is the perception of the problem.

Human behavior has shifted from being a philosophical and theological problem to a psychological and physiological one. I doubt scientists will have better luck in getting to the bottom of why people conduct themselves as they do than St. Augustine and Aristotle did. If anything, they will accomplish less. Aristotle and St. Augustine sought to understand human behavior. Scientists only try to explain it.

Scientists are searching for a cause or trigger: a gene, a brain chemical, an environmental factor, something to explain obesity. They will not find one. What they should be looking for is character and self discipline. Every one should be looking for those. In the mean time, we will keep spending time and money trying to understand what any good high school football coach already knows: if you want to lose weight and get in shape put down the cup cakes and start moving.

It is unclear to me why the study was conducted. If the purpose of the study was to learn the consequences of poor diet and inactivity, it was a waste of time. We know what those consequences are. If the study was aimed at learning the cause of obesity, it was an equal waste of time. We know what causes obesity and, as importantly, we know how to get rid of it. The only thing we are unsure of is why some people don't seem willing to do anything about it. We will not get the answer to that from studying monkeys. Monkeys don't know any better, people do.