This is a heavy read... so worth it though. It’s refreshing to read an in bias factual version of events in the Middle East. Propagandaless must read.

A great account of what might have been. I was familiar with the Sykes-Picot treaty in which Britain and France decided how they would carve up the Middle East territory of the Ottoman Empire assuming they won the First World War; the Balfour Declaration declaring support for an independent Jewish state in Palestine; and what actually transpired in terms of colonial control after the war. I also knew that a number of ethnic groups, especially in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire and the southeastern European portions of the Ottoman Empire, had petitioned, with varying degrees of success, for creation and recognition of independent states.

However, I was unaware of the lengths to which individuals and groups in Syria went to establish an independent Greater Syria (which would have incorporated modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Territories). Syrian intellectuals put great faith and hope in President Wilson of the United States and his Fourteen Points, especially the statement that in questions of sovereignty, the will of the people should be given great weight. Syrian leaders were well aware that the Great Powers doubted that "Arabs" were capable of proper self-governance and that influential figures in Britain and France would use that prejudice to support maintaining control. Therefore, influential Syrians set about creating a democratic State (a constitutional monarchy), electing Prince Faisal as King and electing a Congress. They also created a Syrian Constitution that was a mix of Western ideas, Islamic principles, and local customs. The Syrian Constitution contained protections for minorities and religious freedom (especially the Maronite Christians in Lebanon and the Jewish population in Palestine). While there was support in France and Britain for an independent Greater Syria, the colonial lobby in these countries, especially France, was more powerful and the Syrians were unable to counter the machinations of those who wanted to keep the territory under French control, with Palestine under British control.

It would have been interesting to see Greater Syria given the opportunity to exist as an independent nation. It might not have lasted, especially given the apparent disagreements among King Faisal and the Congress over the balance of power/allocation of authority, and later world events such as World War II. However, if the government of Greater Syria had actually implemented the principles in its Constitution, it would have been more "liberal" and "democratic" in some respects than the Western nations it was seeking to emulate and impress. In particular, its protection of minority rights, if actually implemented, would have been much greater than what was afforded by the United States, especially under President Wilson, who was seen as a great force for liberty and equality by the Syrian people and other groups that had been under the control of the Austro-Hungarian or Ottoman Empires, but yet, as President, Wilson actually increased segregation against the black population in America, especially in the federal government.

If a Greater Syrian nation had been allowed to exist, there might have developed a greater understanding of Islam and Islamic principles and their compatibility with democratic forms of governments. There might have been less need for or appeal for the radical forms of Islam that developed to combat French and British oppression, and therefore much of the instability that has plagued the Middle East for the past century might have been avoided. Of course, ethnic and religious tension, efforts by various countries and companies to control oil supplies, the rise and spread of communism, and other world events might have ultimately doomed the Middle East to conflict and instability. This book was interesting and well researched. It would make a great resource for anyone with a scholarly interest in post-WWI Middle East or Syrian history, providing sources for further exploration of the various topics and individuals addressed in the book. It is also a good book for anyone with a more general interest in early 20th century Middle East history.

I received a copy of the e-book via NetGalley in exchange for a review.

Countries throughout the West are well known for promoting democracy when democracy promotion meets their strategic objectives—most notably in Afghanistan and Iraq in recent times. In How the West Stole Democracy from the Arabs, Elizabeth F. Thompson chronicles what happens when democracy isn’t supported by the West and actually runs counter to the imperialistic interests of Western democracies.
The book opens in the aftermath of World War I as Woodrow Wilson tried to push the global community towards the establishment of a League of Nations based on self-determination and democratic governance. People who had lived under the Ottoman empire and other colonial powers took this moment to press for independence. Some groups in Central and Eastern Europe achieved this objective for a time after being under the Axis Powers thumb.

The Middle East was different as Thompson points out. Syria had the leadership and the intellect to write a constitution, the foresight to hold reasonably democratic elections and had even met as a legislative body. Everything that a democrat of modern conception would want. Except for the fact that the Syrian desire for independence butted up against the prejudices of the day and European colonial interests which proved much more powerful than any nascent democratic notions. It’s something we’re still paying for today.

Thompson takes the reader through the lengthy journey from democracy born to status quo restored introducing the reader to a wide variety of characters. One feels the great hope and great disappointment of would be Syrian democrats and the real fear and uneasiness of European leaders of what a Syrian democracy would mean for their own interests. An interesting piece of history that may explain some of the West’s problems in the Middle East today.

I would say that this is a 3.5 star upgraded to a 4 star. On principle this story is quite fascinating. I feel like generally speaking we in the Western world tend to believe that the Middle East has always been an area deeply conflicted and a region where aggression toward Western countries was expected. So to learn of a time when this wasn’t the case is quite interesting. This covers a long forgotten time in the history of Syria where after years of conflict, the appointed King Faisal, undertakes the process of building a democratic system inside Syria. A system that in context looked a lot like our own democracy here in the US. Repeated snubs and sabotage largely at the hands of the French and the British, the ruling system ultimately collapsed in 1920 or so, but not before the democratic Syrian Congress produced a remarkable document in the form of the Syrian Government Constitution of 1920. 100 years later it is hard to fathom what Syria once could have been. It is only through studious preservation that this rare document exists to be translated for our understanding. While many events have subsequently occurred across the Middle East that has resulted in much instability and friction, this book certainly begs the question, what would the world look like now if the Western Allied Countries had supported the Syrian Government and then left them to rule as a sovereign nation without interference? Given the debauchery of the French Government, I certainly came to have an understanding of the context of the frustrations of many of the Arab people. This is certainly eye opening, but may not appeal across the board to all people. It may be for more of a targeted audience. Story appears to be rigorously researched. Information can be a little dry at times, and the rather complex native Syrian names do not help with tracking the story. If you are interested in middle eastern policy or history this is certainly worth a read. Review posted to Amazon, Goodreads, and LibraryThing.

I didnt finish this book. I had a difficult time getting into reading this book. I found most of the subject matter hard to follow. Normally I would make myself stay with and finish reading a book, but just couldn't get into this subject matter at this time.

There aren't that many moments in history that are SO pivotal and SO frustrating that they tempt me to dedicate the rest of my life to inventing time travel, but this is one of them.

The title of this book is a summary in and of itself. It covers the time from the end of WWI and the Paris Peace Conference into the 1930s, and chronicles in great detail the solid decade of Sisyphean attempts by Arabs to wrest any scrap of self-determination away from the European powers.

Some popular histories cover topics that are so abundantly researched, known, and talked about that you could essentially learn what's in the book by searching the web yourself. This book is not like that. Professor Thompson clearly spent years digging up half-forgotten sources. Some of the early history was familiar to me (Balfour declaration/Hussein-McMahon Correspondence/Sykes-Picot/the King-Crane Commission) but as soon as we left behind the European negotiations, the book delved into things I had barely any awareness of.

For example, a quick google of Rashid Rida turns up a ton of writing on his religious ideas, but barely anything about how he was once the president of Syria. The chronicle of constitutional debates in the Syrian Congress is interesting enough itself to justify the book. Every stage of Faisal and the Arab Nationalists' campaign and every political gambit is recorded, down to who he met with on what day in Paris. I'm glad I know Robert de Caix's name, now, so that I can curse it. The book drags a little at some points, but my primary emotion was impotent rage rather than boredom.

Now, we look back on WWI with nearly pure cynicism. Sure, the Germans started it, but everyone was gunning for that war. Any attempt to cast a morally "good" versus "bad" side sort of falls flat under the shadow of WWII, compared to which all WWI participants are just states acting according to their interests in a pretty understandable way. We know that the between-war years were not great. We know that they were racist as heck, and still racing upward toward peak racism. We know that economies around the world were about to take a near-fatal hit. We know that colonialism was still alive and flourishing, and that no one had the necessary power and will to make the League of Nations anything but a failed experiment.

In contrast, the rhetoric of the WWI victors was firmly cast in the triumph of modern freedom and self-determination over archaic, old-world despotism. Woodrow Wilson really thought he could make the League of Nations work. For most of the players, though, the freedom and justice and rule of law was just wallpaper over the age-old rule of might makes right that had (has?) always governed international politics.

We know all that. But at the time, they didn't.

Even if the Syrian Arabs had known from the start that freedom is taken, not given, they would have had a rough time. A big problem for them throughout the entire independence effort was that they literally could not, physically, get out to trade or communicate with the rest of the world, given their geographical position. It takes a confluence of factors to make a successful revolution, and I'm not sure they would have succeeded even if they went full-throttle for that option from the beginning.

But it is heartbreaking to watch Faisal and all the other nationalist leaders work so hard to build an inclusive, democratic state. They genuinely believed that if they were just politically smart enough, if they just built a good enough state, if their people were united and their country well-administered, that the Europeans would grant them their independence and welcome them into the international community. Why would they believe something like that?? Because that's what the Europeans said. There was just enough real belief in the new liberal international order, just enough genuine, supportive Westerners like Lawrence of Arabia and Charles Crane, to snooker the future of the Middle East.

The French and the British come off horribly, here. This is one historical period where America wasn't the one ruining everything in the Middle East. But the behavior of the European colonial powers is unfortunately not just a shameful past. You could write the same story about Iran, with America cast as the British. The hypocritical tendency of the French and British to deliberately suppress any burgeoning democracy and instead install corrupt or incapable kings, is something that we still love to do today.

After all, what's easier to control, a whole nation's popular opinion, or one single guy who loves money and power? And yet, this short-term solution begun almost a hundred years ago, has created or exacerbated problems that led to how many millions of deaths in the Middle East, from then until now? How much would it be worth, now, to have a stable, powerful, democratic ally in the Middle East, with a hundred-year history of liberal institutions and civil society? Still, it's hard to see any modern power being able or courageous enough to act differently.

Overall, a very interesting and horrible book. To the victor go the spoils.

I would double check some of the events and facts given in this book, but otherwise I think this book would be a great starting point for anyone wanting to learn more about the Middle East.

This is a comprehensive account of an often-overlooked set of events. I'm somewhat less confident than the author that the only barrier to Arab democracy was nasty European imperialists, and I wish there were more on the Arab side of this story. Even so, a very helpful book.

How the West Stole Democracy from the Arabs by Elizabeth Thompson can best be described as detailed, heavy, thorough and dense. The author takes a deep-dive into the skulduggery, personalities, history and treacherous politics of the Middle East post WWI, as the fall of the Ottoman Empire essentially resulted in a ‘land/power-grab’ by Colonial Powers at the time – mainly France and Britain.

Most who follow the news and world history are aware of the dramas surrounding current day Middle East and the view Arabic/Muslim nations hold towards the West. Well, this book goes some way towards explaining why. Perhaps, ‘all the way’ into explaining why. As a Brit (ex-pat living in Australia) myself, I’ve always been ashamed of our colonial past, this book does nothing to remedy that.

This book introduced me to interesting characters such as Prince Faisal, Sheik Rashid, T.E. Lawrence (yes, Lawrence of Arabia) and other significant actors such as the 28th US President Woodrow Wilson who in my mind did seem to start the process of negotiations fair minded and with the best of intentions. There were many, many others – which invariably took me down wormholes of learning and discovery.

The overwhelming sense I have from this story is, there were (still are) moderate Arabs and people of Islam who were genuinely devoted to the cause of setting up their own self-governing democracies but were prohibited to do so by so called advocates of democracy (such as France and Britain). I would also suggest the strategy of interference (putting it nicely) plays well into the hands of fundamentalist Muslims at the time, and to this day. This account indicates the West needs to ‘own’ much of the dramas in the Middle East we see today.

As a book this is very heavy going. It is very much like a text book and the density of the book (also lack of photographs, graphics – or breaks of any kind) wouldn’t really appeal to the casual observer – such as myself. The author seems to be a respected authority on the subject. Thompson is a historian of some note and has expertise on political movements, constitutionalism, gender and foreign intervention in the Middle East. The number of notes and references stated in this book is astounding.

For many, this would be a 5-star read. For the casual observer, wanting to learn something new this might be a bit heavy for an introduction on the topic.

4 stars

Many thanks to NetGalley and the Publishers for allowing me to review an advance copy of this book.