An article in the Egyptian al-Ahram Weekly, written by the director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research, Gamil Mattar, observes about the Arab world that it ?has shown itself to have an unsurpassed ability to stand resolute in the face of change, and not always for the best.?
Mattar writes that much of the media is filled ?with stories of Middle Eastern specialists busily redrawing the map of the Middle East... that a US plan for the comprehensive transformation of systems of rule in the Arab world has already been prepared and is ready to be implemented... that US or Israeli troops might intervene militarily in other Arab countries, such as in Lebanon or Yemen.? However, for all of the spilled ink, the Egyptian column insists that ?though it is possible that Israel, with American support, will launch a campaign on south Lebanon,? the US is making no such plans.
In fact, were the Americans to desire to cause such massive political change, Mattar believes, they will find it very difficult to do so. ?Arab and Islamic countries fought the winds of democratic change that blew over most of the world in the wake of the Cold War, for example,? the Arab Centre director notes, ?and I can well remember how many of us waited for a bit of that good fortune to come our way, as change swept through Eastern and Central Europe. With the same steadfastness, we resisted and defeated every attempt at change after the 1991 Gulf War. Our ability to weather the dreams of economic and political reform brought about by globalisation has also been impressive.?
Regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict, too, the Arabs have remained resistant to change, the al-Ahram Weekly article continues, ?passively withstanding challenges posed by Ariel Sharon's government in Israel over the past two years, and particularly over the last few months.? Mattar implies that the Arab passivity is almost the equivalent of a defeat in war by the Israelis.
Mattar goes on to explain Middel Eastern realities: ?the regional map implemented after World War I has lasted because the Arabs have refused to change it; the only change in the region has been that the entities created by Western powers in the region have become nation- states. Yet, some of these states have not matured. Indeed, some of them perhaps do not deserve to be called states at all, as there are still elements within them that have not absorbed the idea of the nation-state, just as there are elements that the state itself has not absorbed.... The Middle Eastern state is autocratic, leaving nothing out of its orbit of influence, and at the same time it is underdeveloped. In other words, while nation-states have been established in the Middle East and even institutionalised, they have sometimes not yet succeeded in the process of nation building. This will be a heavy burden on anyone seeking to implement far-reaching changes in political and social institutions.
?Furthermore, overwhelming apathy prevails in the region. The peoples of the region seem to have little desire to participate in political life, and any plan for change -- no matter how well-equipped financially and institutionally it may be -- cannot succeed if it does find agreement among the people. Achieving this will require a much more intense campaign than the one currently underway, which seeks only to make the peoples of the region more favourably disposed towards America, Israel, and democratic government.?
As for the Islamist elements in the Middle East, the al-Ahram article claims that ?it will be difficult to institute democracy without the participation of some elements of Political Islam. Any plan for change will need to call upon moderate Islamists to participate within a constitutional framework and accept and abide by democratic principles, including the regular rotation of power. From the US perspective, extremist Islamists will do their utmost to put obstacles before more moderate elements, who will alone enjoy legitimacy in US eyes. Such moderate Islamists will depend on the material and ideological support of the US, and they will be obliged to abide by US conditions.? This may work ?in some Arab countries,? Mattar writes, ?but it is hard to see it working well in countries that lack civil institutions or that do not respect the separation of religion and politics. Therefore, in these states the US may suggest that things take a different form, for it is not in US interests, or in the interests of regional stability, to replace systems of government that have been in power for decades and have established a political system that resembles a modern nation-state.?
Gamil Mattar flatly states, ?Democracy will probably not be implemented in such states, though gestures are likely to be made towards political reform. These states will not be required to establish political parties in the Western sense, or to hold free elections by secret ballot..... Washington is probably relying on the Arab countries themselves to implement political reforms, if only in order to avoid accusations that they are only acting on American orders.?
However, the author assures his Egyptian readers, ?because the Arabs can resist change, even priding themselves on it, this does not mean that change is impossible. If a new regional map is indeed drawn up, the Arabs may not be able to frustrate its implementation as they have in the past. What is certain is that the Middle East is now going through one of the most difficult periods in its modern history.?
The author is even willing to write that ?[t]here will be initiatives in many Arab countries enjoining Arabs to implement democracy, and there may be a new initiative proposing a new relationship with Sharon's Israel. Indeed... many in the region have indicated their willingness to consider new ideas, such as Turkey's proposal to establish a new regional bloc that will include Turkey and ultimately Iran and Israel.?
--------------------------------------------------------
Spend Passover with Arutz Sheva at a resort in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or Kfar Pines (near Hadera). Click here for info.
Mattar writes that much of the media is filled ?with stories of Middle Eastern specialists busily redrawing the map of the Middle East... that a US plan for the comprehensive transformation of systems of rule in the Arab world has already been prepared and is ready to be implemented... that US or Israeli troops might intervene militarily in other Arab countries, such as in Lebanon or Yemen.? However, for all of the spilled ink, the Egyptian column insists that ?though it is possible that Israel, with American support, will launch a campaign on south Lebanon,? the US is making no such plans.
In fact, were the Americans to desire to cause such massive political change, Mattar believes, they will find it very difficult to do so. ?Arab and Islamic countries fought the winds of democratic change that blew over most of the world in the wake of the Cold War, for example,? the Arab Centre director notes, ?and I can well remember how many of us waited for a bit of that good fortune to come our way, as change swept through Eastern and Central Europe. With the same steadfastness, we resisted and defeated every attempt at change after the 1991 Gulf War. Our ability to weather the dreams of economic and political reform brought about by globalisation has also been impressive.?
Regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict, too, the Arabs have remained resistant to change, the al-Ahram Weekly article continues, ?passively withstanding challenges posed by Ariel Sharon's government in Israel over the past two years, and particularly over the last few months.? Mattar implies that the Arab passivity is almost the equivalent of a defeat in war by the Israelis.
Mattar goes on to explain Middel Eastern realities: ?the regional map implemented after World War I has lasted because the Arabs have refused to change it; the only change in the region has been that the entities created by Western powers in the region have become nation- states. Yet, some of these states have not matured. Indeed, some of them perhaps do not deserve to be called states at all, as there are still elements within them that have not absorbed the idea of the nation-state, just as there are elements that the state itself has not absorbed.... The Middle Eastern state is autocratic, leaving nothing out of its orbit of influence, and at the same time it is underdeveloped. In other words, while nation-states have been established in the Middle East and even institutionalised, they have sometimes not yet succeeded in the process of nation building. This will be a heavy burden on anyone seeking to implement far-reaching changes in political and social institutions.
?Furthermore, overwhelming apathy prevails in the region. The peoples of the region seem to have little desire to participate in political life, and any plan for change -- no matter how well-equipped financially and institutionally it may be -- cannot succeed if it does find agreement among the people. Achieving this will require a much more intense campaign than the one currently underway, which seeks only to make the peoples of the region more favourably disposed towards America, Israel, and democratic government.?
As for the Islamist elements in the Middle East, the al-Ahram article claims that ?it will be difficult to institute democracy without the participation of some elements of Political Islam. Any plan for change will need to call upon moderate Islamists to participate within a constitutional framework and accept and abide by democratic principles, including the regular rotation of power. From the US perspective, extremist Islamists will do their utmost to put obstacles before more moderate elements, who will alone enjoy legitimacy in US eyes. Such moderate Islamists will depend on the material and ideological support of the US, and they will be obliged to abide by US conditions.? This may work ?in some Arab countries,? Mattar writes, ?but it is hard to see it working well in countries that lack civil institutions or that do not respect the separation of religion and politics. Therefore, in these states the US may suggest that things take a different form, for it is not in US interests, or in the interests of regional stability, to replace systems of government that have been in power for decades and have established a political system that resembles a modern nation-state.?
Gamil Mattar flatly states, ?Democracy will probably not be implemented in such states, though gestures are likely to be made towards political reform. These states will not be required to establish political parties in the Western sense, or to hold free elections by secret ballot..... Washington is probably relying on the Arab countries themselves to implement political reforms, if only in order to avoid accusations that they are only acting on American orders.?
However, the author assures his Egyptian readers, ?because the Arabs can resist change, even priding themselves on it, this does not mean that change is impossible. If a new regional map is indeed drawn up, the Arabs may not be able to frustrate its implementation as they have in the past. What is certain is that the Middle East is now going through one of the most difficult periods in its modern history.?
The author is even willing to write that ?[t]here will be initiatives in many Arab countries enjoining Arabs to implement democracy, and there may be a new initiative proposing a new relationship with Sharon's Israel. Indeed... many in the region have indicated their willingness to consider new ideas, such as Turkey's proposal to establish a new regional bloc that will include Turkey and ultimately Iran and Israel.?
--------------------------------------------------------
Spend Passover with Arutz Sheva at a resort in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or Kfar Pines (near Hadera). Click here for info.