 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 15 - 21 June 2000 Issue No. 486 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 15 - 21 June 2000 Issue No. 486
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters End of an era?
By Omayma Abdel-LatifEgyptian analysts and political figures all seem to agree that a new Arab order is in the making, with a younger generation of Arab rulers coming to power. They diverge, however, as to whether this change implies an end to the Arab nationalist rhetoric of the past in favour of more liberal values characterised by an openness towards the Arabs' erstwhile colonial masters in the West. There are ideas, some of them insist, that do not die with the passing of their leading advocates.
"Assad may be the last of Abdel-Nasser's generation who embraced Arab nationalism and made it the guiding principle in running the affairs of his country, but certainly his death does not spell out the end of this ideology," Diaeddin Dawoud, leader of the Nasserist Party, told Al-Ahram Weekly.
He added that many political forces in the Arab world still believe in pan-Arabism as a valid political ideology. The Nasserist party issued a statement to eulogise Assad. It praised him for "not succumbing to Israeli demands and for supporting the Lebanese resistance until it forced Israel to pull out of southern Lebanon." The statement also cited the fact that Assad had rejected the 1978 Camp David accords and also opposed all concessions to the Israelis.
To most political forces in Egypt, the fact that Assad did not finalise a peace deal with Israel remains one of the most important tasks left for his successor to handle.
Khaled Mohieddin, leader of the leftist Tagammu Party, believes that the fact that Assad did not sign a "capitulationist" peace deal with Israel and did not give up one inch of occupied land was his most important achievement. "Suffice it to say that he did not sign a deal that would have brought humiliation to his own people; on this point, no Arab ruler is his match," Mohieddin said.
The central issue dominating a plethora of articles in the Egyptian opposition press was the question of succession. In an editorial entitled The passing of the king, Abbas El-Tarabili, co-editor-in-chief of Al-Wafd newspaper, mouthpiece of the Wafd Party, described Assad as "a true Arab patriot who remained a hero of the struggle against Israel to the last breath." El-Tarabili wondered, however, whether Assad's son Bashar has his predecessor's political savvy to manage the trappings of power. He described as a "minefield" many issues which Assad the father has bequeathed Assad the son.
Yassin Serageddin, deputy chairman of the Wafd Party, argued that Bashar, though not burdened by the ideological commitments of his father, was unlikely to abandon his father's path. A radical change in Syrian policy over Israel is consequently far-fetched. The reason, in Serageddin's words, is that many old guard elements continue to keep their positions in the top hierarchy of the political structure of Syria and, therefore, radical alterations to existing realities are not in sight.
There was a consensus among Egyptian political figures that the way the succession was being carried out was "unprecedented."
"He [Assad] has basically launched an unprecedented trend, because Syria is a republic and not a monarchy but, by so doing, he has turned it into a monarchical presidency," Dawoud told the Weekly.
The Muslim Brotherhood's spokesman, Ma'moun El-Hodeibi, could not agree more. He said that "a bizarre trend can be identified in the republics of the Arab world, by means of which new royal families are emerging."
But Hamdein Sabahi, a member of the Press Syndicate's council and a would-be founder of the pro-Nasserist Karama (dignity) party, said that it did not really matter whether it was the son or any other person who took over as long as the regime remained authoritarian. "In authoritarian regimes, one does not ask about who is taking over because it makes little difference since the nature of the political system has not changed," he told the Weekly.
Contrary to these views, both Mahgoub Omar, an expert in Israeli-Arab affairs, and Mohamed Fayeq, head of the Arab Organisation for Human Rights and a former minister of information under Gamal Abdel-Nasser, saw the rise to power of 34-year-old Bashar as a prelude to a new political order in the region. The two went as far as to suggest that a more liberal and more rational order could be in the making not only in Syria but in the rest of Arab countries whose rulers belong to a generation with a political record untarnished by acts of terror and repression.
Fayeq believes that the region is going through historic moments of stress and transition. Therefore, the supremacy of law, political transparency and popular participation in the political process seem to be inevitable for creating a smooth transition to a democratic system and away from a style of political rule that is no longer in tune with developments in the region.
"For the past 50 years politics in the Arab world have been a one-man show, but perceptions of the leader, the one-party system, the mobilisation of the people through the monopoly of the mass media have long been discredited," Fayeq said.
Fayeq noted that reinforcing democracy and freedom should be the order of the day if the Arab world is to clinch the life or death choice with which it is confronted.
