The September terrorist attacks on the United States triggered a debate over "why they hate us," involving the Arab Middle East as well as the entire Muslim world. On the Arab side, the same question was asked at the popular level. However, since free debates are not allowed in authoritarian systems, the international community did not get the real flavor of that debate.
The United Nation's Human Development Program (UNDP) has done the world a great service by commissioning a report on the state of Arab societies prepared by a group of Arab intellectuals. It does not answer the "why they hate us" question for the region.
However, it does underscore what is wrong with their polities, and who the real enemy is. It is not the West. It is the authoritarian rule and its perpetrators. Here are some of the highlights of that report, which can be viewed in full in PDF format at: http://www.undp.org/rbas/ahdr/:
The authoritarian rulers know only too well that their very survival depends on the continued backwardness and acute economic underdevelopment of their societies. Thus, as the rest of the world becomes enlightened with the spread of the information revolution and reaps the benefits stemming from enhanced globalization and industrialization, Arab countries remain at the very bottom of those phenomena. Policies of authoritarian regimes are directly responsible for their plight.
Sedate bureaucratic language
Authoritarian rule, more often than not, is also notoriously inept, corrupt and unresponsive to popular needs. The UNDP's report makes these points in sedate bureaucratic language.
Consider its following observations: "There is a substantial lag between Arab countries and other regions in terms of participatory governance." And "freedoms of expression and association are frequently curtailed. Obsolete norms of legitimacy prevail."
Finally, government spending and policy changes "are evident in lack of accountability, transparency and integrity, along with ineffectiveness, inefficiency and unresponsiveness to the demands of peoples and of development." The temperate language of this report notwithstanding, it is still a scathing criticism of the state of affairs in the Arab countries, and was released at a time when the search for "what went wrong?" and "who did it to us?" is on.
Once such a biting criticism of the state of affairs of Arab polities is circulated worldwide, it is reasonable to expect that sweeping reforms will be introduced and "qualitative changes", to quote Karl Marx, will be brought about. Marx was not right about the feasibility of a classless society; however, he was definitely right about the fact that qualitative change may only be brought about as a result of a cataclysmic change and through an implosion from within, especially when the "enemy" is the regime (or, in this instance, regimes) in power.
Needless to say, Marx was referring to nondemocratic societies, since democratic societies are procedurally equipped to bring about such changes through periodic elections.
However, the trouble with all societal implosions is that no one can predict the outcome. Mikhail Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika were examples of the fact that although he only meant to reform the archaic political system, he ended up with an entirely unintended outcome — the implosion of the Soviet Union. Implosion in a country may not mean the emergence of a representative system of government.
'Managed' democratic change
Even if some semblance of democracy emerges, still no one can be certain whether a less democratic system will become more or even less democratic, and when. Iran is a good example of this particular point. In the absence of such a certainty, an alternative would be "managed" democratic change. But which regime would be willing to bring about managed change? More to the point, who is going to persuade any government in the Arab world to bring about managed democratic change?
The continuation of the status quo in the Arab world is not acceptable, for it only postpones cataclysmic changes in most, if not all, Arab polities. It is not possible for people to suffer endlessly, especially when they see on their televisions the uplifting outcomes of globalization and industrialization in the standards of living of their European and Asian counterparts.
Managed democratic change from within emerges as the only realistic option. The United States, the only declared global proselytizer for democracy, may be able to play a limited and a low-key role in this direction.
In the past, the United States has been pussyfooting around this issue in that region. President George W Bush's insistence in his June 24 speech on the interim Palestinian state was an important development in the sense that it called for the establishment of a democratic government in the Palestinian-administered territories. However, given the highly controversial nature of that speech, there is a fear that other Arab states, wittingly or otherwise, missed that point entirely.
But if introduction of democracy in the Palestinian-administered territories becomes a successful reality, Jordan might be the next candidate. Lebanon also stands a high probability of becoming a democracy, since it does not have a strongman like Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Syria under Bishara Assad is not yet the repressive dictatorship that it was under his father, Hafiz Assad.
However, given the fact that the old guard and the security apparatus created by senior Assad is still very much intact, Syria is not likely to become less authoritarian, or more democratic, any time soon. Iraq is a hopeless case of a continued tyranny. Even if Saddam is toppled, there is no certainty that Iraq will start its march toward democracy soon thereafter.
Under authoritarian repression
In North Africa, Morocco may be a leading candidate for managed democratic change. But the remaining states of that region are likely to remain under authoritarian repression for the foreseeable future. In fact, both Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Gaddafi are grooming their sons to be their heirs apparent. Sadly, hereditary dictatorship is also a long-standing phenomenon of the Arab Middle East.
That leaves the Gulf monarchies as the next region of challenge. However, the Persian Gulf monarchies are not uniform in their practice of authoritarian rule. Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and Kuwait are already experimenting with limited democracy, and a discreet American encouragement for enhancing the scope of that experimentation might not be a bad idea.
Saudi Arabia, the largest state of the Arabian Peninsula, remains an archetype of authoritarian rule. It is also a country where Islamic orthodoxy is extremely well entrenched. So opening up the Saudi polity will be a great challenge, and only the ruling elite of that country may be able to bring that about.
The current generation of Saudi rulers, sons of King Abdel Aziz, may not be the ones to play a crucial role in that direction. A general expectation is that the grandsons of Abdel Aziz might become the harbingers of political change. However, those who support this view provide no hard evidence to prove this point.
As the stoutest obstacle to change, authoritarian rule is the real enemy, but also has great potential for becoming an equally powerful force for change. Given the magnitude of development-related changes for the Arab countries, the extant regimes had better become its initiators and managers, especially if they do not wish to be swept aside. Political change in the Arab world is coming. There is nothing uncertain about that proposition. What is questionable is whether the real enemy of change will become its promoter and manager. — GVNN/Asia Times Online
-- Ehsan Ahrari is a Norfolk, Virginia, US-based strategic analyst.
