Steadfast... for how long?
Famously resistant to change though the Arab world may be, the current crisis could be the end of an era, writes Gamil Mattar*
The US media has been filled recently with stories of Middle Eastern specialists busily redrawing the map of the Middle East. Indeed, many in the West -- and some of us here -- have repeatedly said 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 as soon as the war on Iraq is over. Amidst all this talk of new regional maps and regime change, some Western commentators have even suggested that US or Israeli troops might intervene militarily in other Arab countries, such as in Lebanon or Yemen. It is only natural that we should take a keen interest in this media campaign, which sometimes seems to be the result of a deliberate policy and sometimes seems to be merely malicious gloating over the misfortunes of the Arabs.
It seems logical to suggest that this media campaign is at least partly deliberate. As the US prepares for war on Iraq, such a campaign is likely to cause consternation among the Arab political elite, curbing the desire of Arab governments to oppose American plans for Iraq and for the rest of the region.
However, for the time being I do not think new maps of the region have been drawn up, nor do I believe that there exists a plan specifying which regimes are to be targeted for change. It seems unlikely that the US is planning to send its forces to any other country in the Middle East, at least not in the weeks and months directly following an attack on Iraq, though it is possible that Israel, with American support, will launch a campaign on south Lebanon.
Indeed, this region has shown itself to have an unsurpassed ability to stand resolute in the face of change, and not always for the best. 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, 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.
Finally, Arab resistance to change has also been obvious in passively withstanding challenges posed by Ariel Sharon's government in Israel over the past two years, and particularly over the last few months. One Western commentator has even described Sharon's victory in the recent Israeli elections as being the fifth or sixth Israeli victory over the Arabs. Though this is an exaggeration, there is some truth to it -- Arab politics at the present time show as much.
However, 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.
Several writers have recently had occasion to mention the secret 1916 Sykes-Picot accords, and the map for the region that was implemented by the British and French following Ottoman defeat in World War I. That map has continued largely unchanged, even in the face of attempts by some -- in the name of Arab unity or the unity of the Fertile Crescent or of Greater Syria -- to change it. In other words, 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. While some of these groups benefit from the existence of the nation- state, only being able to pursue their activities and recruit followers through state institutions, others oppose the whole idea of the nation-state along with its institutions. Further groups are resistant to changes that might undermine the power of the state. These various identities and political trends will create added difficulties for powers seeking to draw up a new regional map or institute fundamental change in the Middle East.
Would-be reformers will face other difficulties as well. 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.
Given these difficulties and the region's legendary refusal to accept change, officials at US research centres, as well as at the State and Defense departments, are no doubt well aware 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.
US support for moderate Islamist elements may work in some Arab countries, 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.
Instead, these traditionalist regimes will need to develop into more modern political systems. 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. Nor is the US likely to demand fundamental or immediate changes in social legislation, such as the right of young people to mix freely in schools and the workplace, or equal rights for women in social, political, and economic activity. 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.
Over the coming weeks we will be hearing more about such political and economic reforms, which have been in the works for many years now and well before US plans for reform. There 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, some commentators are recommending that a second Madrid Conference be convened as soon as the war against Iraq is over, and 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.
* The writer is director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research.
