Tharwalizations

Change is in the air

If the region spirals into warfare again, there will be enough blame to go around of course. But someone in the region should bear in mind that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the region did have 15 years to reinvent itself in accordance with the new realities all around it, but failed to do so. Stability and constancy are not values always to be cherished, and change no matter how onerous a task it might pose is not an existential threat. It becomes so when people try to avoid it at all costs, just as the peoples and government of the region did. But change is coming nonetheless, and violence will play a role in it, regardless of our best intentions. We are better off planning to manage it rather than resist in that nihilistic fashion to which many of our leaders seem accustomed.

A Note on Apathy

Apathy is probably one of the most puzzling and serious social diseases affecting regional youth these days. Yet, we can blame economic conditions and the local fear culture, stemming out of authoritarian predilections of ruling regimes and the potential for ethnic strife in some cases, only so much before we have to stop and consider the involvement of other factors in this matter as well. For fear and economic hardships only represent the inhibitive side of the equation, while human behavior is equally shaped by motivating factors. Indeed, the lack of credible leaders and the lack of a promising vision of the future, both of which are necessary factors for inspiring people into action, seem to be involved here as well.

Yet, the barriers represented by fear and poverty cannot be broken unless a realistic and attractive pull factor is introduced onto the scene. Had Islamist and nationalist interpenetrations truly sufficed in this regard, our regions would have succumbed to Islamism and nationalism decades ago. But, it is the fact that many of our youths, regardless of the particular nature of their religiosity and national identity, are still yearning from something more rational and modern that is exactly what is keeping the regional options open.

But unless the more liberal and rational elements out there attempt to offer a more appealing and rational vision and soon, our youths are bound to fall by default to the lures of the only real vision now dominating the scene, which tends to combine Arab nationalism and Islamism. Moreover, the “victories” achieved by the proponents of this vision, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, etc., or at least their ability to stand up to the rest of the world, and to give their followers and sympathizers a sense of empowerment, are bound to help their cause, while serving to weaken ours.

Of Freedom and Stability

We should give as much thought to the issue of quality with regard to the peace and stability that many of us are advocating and holding on to, as we do to the consequences of change and instability. After all, the search for freedom, progress prosperity and justice is no longer reconcilable, if it has ever been, with the status quo in our part of the world, and does indeed pose a serious challenge to it. Our search to improve the quality of lives requires and necessitates radical change.

We are indeed facing an existential crisis par excellence here, and have been for quite a while now, yet we continue to turn our backs on it. This is undermining our ability to survive it, both as viable states and as a viable culture. Should we persist in our rejectionist attitude vis-à-vis change, there might indeed be nothing left for us to reject soon. Our choices, our fate and our resources might just be taken away from us just as easily as they were handed down to us. History does not wait for people to make their up minds at their leisure, regardless of the legitimacy of their hesitation, their concerns and their fears with regard to change, and the all-too-human nature of them all. For history, though made by people, is as dispassionate about their feelings as time itself. History is Time. The only thing it can ever do is pass, regardless of whether we are onboard or deep under.

Reality between explanation and justification

Our attempt to explain the reality around us neither justifies nor consecrates it. Rather, it is only a necessary instrument that can enable us to better deal with it, its causes and consequences, and its impact on our lives. Consequently, our description of diversity in our region and of the rising ethnic tension in it is only meant to make sense of it and to enable us to better deal with it and with the challenges it poses for all of us.

Shutting Down Guantanamo

Guantanamo is a disgrace. No one can deny that, and the recent ruling to the effect that the Bush administration had violated both American military law and the Geneva Convention in ordering the military tribunals comes as an official endorsement of point of view. Indeed, and due to the fact that such a glaring abuse of human rights is being perpetrated by the very administration that is supposed to champion the cause of democracy and human rights around the world should naturally be noted and condemned by people from around the world.

However, people from the Middle East in particular should think twice before dwelling too much on this point, the prison systems operated by their own government are far worse and date way back in time. Moreover, their silence in this regard, while understandable, is one of the main reasons why their dictatorial regimes continue to rule even after so many decades of misrule, oppression and corruption, and why American and international troops are now back in their midst.

Oppression breeds ignorance, and the admixture of the two attracts more overt foreign dabbling and intervention. The battle against abuse, even one perpetrated by far away countries, begins within. Fighting against the internal enemy should be the first priority for the reformers of the region. For once we shut down our own prisons, there will be no more Guantanamos.

Democratize but Stabilize

No one can any longer deny that there is a real and serious need for a concerted well-coordinated multilateral approach to the processes of development, modernization and democratization in the Broader Middle Eat and North Africa Region. Quick fixes are indeed impossible, but a need to shake the status quo is, nonetheless, quite urgent. If the UNDP reports of 2002-4 have served to elucidate anything, it is the necessity of drastic changes in policies in the region, but few of the existing leaders seem willing and/or capable of this. National interest considerations are not at stake here for them, it is their parochial interests, and, in typical cynical human fashion, they tend to override all other considerations.

And there is the rub: if some regimes in the region are not pushed into change, they will not willingly adopt it, and if there were pushed, they will more likely try to bunker down and challenge the world, no matter how foolish the challenge might seem. What the right course of action is in this case is anyone’s guess really. But one thing is clear, the UNDP reports paint a very dark picture of the present and foretells a future with many failed states in the region as a result of lack of the serious lack of development. And the region is just too central and too vital to be left to rot.

A few thoughts on modernity

Many if not most of the main problems facing us in the region and hindering the process of change and modernization therein are psychological in nature. One such problem is the inability of our people to reconcile themselves with the necessity of making that crossover from the traditional to the modern. Instead, most seem to believe that they can keep one leg in each world thus maximizing their benefit, that is, they think that they can avail themselves of all that advantages that modernity has to offer while holding on as hard as they can to traditional values.

Often, this dilemma boils down to a desire to get all the technology but change nothing of the customs, values and mannerisms. Some might go a little further and opt to adopt certain superficial aspects of modernity, such as the modern dress-code for both men and women, but while adhering to the selfsame value system that any run-of-mill Islamist will adhere to, such as arranged marriages and many of the usual restrictions on women, especially with regard to inheritance and chastity. 

This inability to make the break with the past and move forward that has plagued our part of the world for the last century or so is precisely why our societies are now poised at the verge of a complete relapse into pre-modern modes of existence. We have not earned what modernity has to offer, because, one, we have not taken an active part in making for centuries, and, two, because we refuse to embrace it as a whole, on account of its “glaring” imperfections.

Indeed, modernity is not perfect, what human product is? But it also cannot be perfected by people who insist on remaining outside it, or who are not wholeheartedly committed to it, or who continue to look at it with a certain disdain, it being a “foreign” product and all that, and who continue to reject its essence: the insistence on individuality and individual rights.

Indeed, if people in our region can only accept that concept of individual rights, then, each one of them becomes free to create the particular mixture of modernity and traditionalism that best suits the quirks of his/her mind and soul. For a wholehearted embracing of modernity is not synonymous with a complete rejection of everything that traditional values have to offer. On the contrary, it simply gives the individual the right to construct the values system that best suits him/her and to act on that so long as the basic human rights of others are respected. This embedded ambivalence of modernity is what makes it better than traditional value systems with their claims to divine sanctions and inability to tolerate “heretical” views.

But this ambivalence is also modernity’s weak point, one that is often exploited by Islamists, and other fundamentalists, who would protest loudly against any infringements against their basic human rights, while simultaneously and quite knowingly preaching a message that, in effect, denies others their basic human rights.

Be that as it may, every system does have weak points, and the best way to protect the modern system from its main weak point is through vigilance. The temptation to resort to intimidation and establishing legal restrictions on basic freedoms, such as free speech and the freedom of assembly is nothing less than foolish as it will eventually serve to undermine the very system we are trying to protect.

Death by Sect

Indeed, and as this article by Lee Smith illustrates, we need to focus on the real issues in our beleaguered part of the world, namely: the problems and challenges posed by our intricate ethnic and religious diversity and the enduing communal modes of belonging and organization in our midst. The potential for violence posed by our continuing neglect to seriously address these issues is rising by the day as more and more radical forces rush to fill in the vacuum left by the reticence of the moderates. The chances for peacebuilding development and enlightenment are practically non-existing in this climate and this could only spell disaster sooner than we’d like to think. 

Asking all the wrong questions

Ever since the Danish Cartoon Controversy, a spate of alarmist articles and reports on Islam and the Muslim communities in western societies appeared in various newspapers and journals across the world, all warning against the danger posed by Islam as such and all asserting that Islam as a faith is inherently violence.

But, and while I do not dispute the existence of a problem related to a clash between the values espoused by traditional faiths and those advocated by modernity, I find it too simplistic, nonetheless, to make such absurd claims. For like all other traditional faith systems out there, Islamic teachings and holy texts have throughout history lent themselves equally to the pursuit of peace and happiness as to the waging of war against the infidels and the heretics.

As such, the real questions in font of us is not whether Islam is a religion of peace or not, and not whether Europe is being Islamicized through an invasion of hordes of Muslim immigrants, rather the real questions should focus on the nature of the mechanisms that need to be employed for modernizing Muslim societies and of integration Muslims into the fabric of modern existence. The questions should also deal with the various variants of transitional arrangements that need to be involved here.

There are no easy answers here, of course, but that’s in itself a demonstration of the relevance and correctness of the questions being posed. The questions referred to above, on the other hand, can lead to the very simple conclusion regarding the inevitability and necessity of conflict, with all the compromises conflicts usually entail with regards to respect of the basic human rights of the perceived “enemies.”

Syria and the Fallacies of the China Model

Witnessing the reintroduction of the China Model into the scene of the political discouse surrounding Syria's future comes as quite an alarming developmet. The Model was first introduced into the country’s political discourse in early 2000 by some Baath and other leftwing ideologues, but now it is being reintroduced by American right- and leftwing commentators seeking to further their anti-neocon diatribe, or avert blame over the worsening situation in Iraq – after all, it is never too early to begin campaigning for the next elections on behalf of your favorite party. 

For, in essence, the Chinese Model is nothing more than a new way for avoiding dealing with the real issue at hand, namely that of ME inborn resilience and resistance to change.

As a concept, the Chinese Model puts economic change and administrative reforms first on the reform agenda in a given country, while postponing the issue of political change to an undisclosed future date. In a country like China, with its 1.2 billion people, this system still leaves us with a 2 million plus ruling elite and a corresponding complex decision-making process that opens some room for some sort of debate to take place, a debate in which quite a few capable minds are involved. As such, there is an off chance here that this Model can indeed work, for China.

but, and within the context of a country like Syria, a country already bled dry of all major brain power and most of its creative minds, the Chinese Model can oly serve to preserve the existing system of sectario-political oppression, and can only pave the way to the type of economic liberalism that can only serve the monopolistic interests of the brothers, brother-in-laws, cousins and other party members and comrades-in-arms. The society, meanwhile, has no other option but to descend into an atavistic hell.

Indeed, this is the unavoidable effect of globalization on small states with an inherently illiberal and authoritarian political culture, a corrupt ruling elite, and populations that, in the absence of good and modern educational systems, continue to be quite susceptible to the mesmerizing allure of a messianic medievalistic ideology.

But change in the region is a must. And change in Syria is now unavoidable. For the processes of its disintegration has already been set in motion, by rulers and external powers alike. To cop out on the responsibilities emanating from this now is not only cowardly, but unwise. If another sectarian mayhem is to be averted, change in the country needs to be properly facilitated and managed, and a anew social contract of sorts that can rebind the country’s various ethnic and confessional groups together needs to be introduced.

Shying away from these responsibilities will only serve to delay what has already been made inevitable, at an almost deliberate pace, and will only make the eventual implosion worse for the entire region, with ramifications that will likely be felt in many other parts of the world. Indeed, failure to intervene at the right time is often more catastrophic than mismanaging the intervention itself, albeit both are equally undesirable.