Razor thin
The American initiative to supposedly democratise the Middle East continued to inspire the Egyptian press to write negatively about it, writes Aziza Sami
Click to view caption |
|
Amr Selim in Egypt's Rose El-Youssef aims his paintbrush at public officials who lack a conscience. "We should import from Japan," the newspaper reader says in response to the front-page story: "Japanese minister commits suicide after being convicted of corruption." Arab foreign ministers doze off as a taped message "condemns, denounces, rejects..." Amgad Rasmi of Asharq Al-Awsat
|
In the buildup to the upcoming visit by President Hosni Mubarak to the US next month and with the visit to Egypt and the Arab region by a high- level American envoy to discuss the much talked about blueprint for democratisation of the "Greater Middle East" currently being worked out by the US and G8 countries, democracy was the one theme which dominated press columns to the exclusion of almost everything else this week.
There was overall an implicit acceptance of the need for reform of the current Arab political, social and economic systems. The remarkable exception was in the independent weekly Al- Osbou' which on Monday xenophobically shouted out that the new American initiative would "change passages from the Qur'an".
More than once, parallels were drawn between the current ailing Arab political systems and the former "sick man of Europe", the Ottoman Empire. A primary reservation expressed by a number of columnists, however, was that no mention is made in the proposed blueprint for reform of a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, regarded as a perennial time bomb which, because it is yet to be defused, will ultimately undermine all initiatives at reform, democratisation, etc.
Another aspect with which several writers took issue was that of the inclusion of Israel in the Greater Middle East, reservations attributed to a host of complex reasons, foremost of which is again the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians.
Devoting a series of articles over the week to this topic, columnist Gamal Badawi, in the daily newspaper Al-Wafd, of the opposition Wafd Party, referred in detail to reports issued by the US- based NGO Freedom House in 2003, as well as by the UN's Human Development Report, which showed the Arab countries on the lowest rung of the continuum of democracy, respect for human and civil rights, the adoption of scientific approaches and support for science and education.
However, Badawi writes, "While some in the Middle East are dreaming of a brighter future as a result of initiatives by the US to 'democratise' the Arab world, there are others who cannot see in it but a plan to safeguard America's interests by means of regime change and remap the Middle East based on American perceptions. The objective here is seen as including Israel, which is neither Muslim nor Arab, as part of this new Middle East." Most serious of all, according to Badawi, is the initiative's deliberate oversight of the chronic Middle East problem: the Palestinian- Israeli conflict. Not even passing reference is made to attempt to defuse "the Israeli time bomb", he writes, "and from here arise suspicions about the project and its aims."
Badawi does give the European countries the benefit of the doubt by saying that they, especially Germany, have at least made it a point to include in their initiative for democratisation a stipulation on the necessity of speedy implementation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. But he does not spare the "absolutely passive" Arab regimes from criticism, comparing them to the condemned awaiting execution on death row or to put it in his own words, "like someone trapped in a house about to collapse with nowhere to go. So he stays until it comes tumbling down on his head." (The writer apparently derived this last metaphor from daily Egyptian life where such occurrences are not uncommon).
On Wednesday, Al-Ahram columnist Salaheddin Hafez attributed the current US plan to democratise the Middle East, which he said is in all cases a "national and pan-Arab demand", to the relentless pressure that the far-right is exerting on the American president. Hafez also writes that the Arab regimes are in a bind, forced as they are to undertake speedy and face- saving reforms which fall short of the expectations of both their long-suffering peoples and their "American masters".
In conclusion, Hafez commends President Mubarak for "most clearly distinguishing between his own people's demands for reform and those put forth by the Americans for their own objectives, and which have come under intense criticism".
Under the headline, "The thin line between rejecting foreign interference and rejecting democracy", left-wing writer and intellectual Salah Eissa directed scathing words in Al-Wafd on Saturday to a recent spate of declarations issued by several Arab countries like "democracy is not to be imposed but must be determined by peoples of the region, according to its culture, its characteristics, its individual properties, etc." Exasperatingly commenting on what he considers a smug and rather hypocritical attitude, Eissa writes, "Our masters (the Arab regimes) therefore, do not want the Americans to say a word on the question of democracy. They may be right in this but why don't they tell us what are the characteristics of this Arab democracy which makes Western democracy so unsuited for us? Is it that we, the Arab people, cannot be ruled except by fire and brimstone, prisons and concentration camps, emergency laws and corruption? What exactly does this Arab democracy look like? Does it glorify presidents and kings, forge elections and stifle partisan politics?"
Eissa, who was once ostracised because of his leftist leanings, continues, "The problem with the current discourse on the subject of democracy is that it has led to a closing of ranks between the current Arab political regimes and despotic nationalists. The Arab regimes may be very touchy about foreign intervention when it threatens their dictatorial rule but they have no qualms whatsoever about accepting excessive foreign intervention in the sovereign political, economic and military affairs of their countries. Meanwhile, their new-found allies, the despotic nationalists, reject foreign intervention but not domestic repression and dictatorship. In fact, they seek to replace the latter with their own on the premise that they will be more patriotic, anti-colonial and independent than their predecessors.
"There are also those who seek to establish religious rule whose legitimacy is derived from the sanctity of a select few, not from the nation as a whole since the very concept of 'nation', introduced by infidels, is a deviation from the true path.
"In the midst of all of this," concludes Eissa, "the voices of nationalist democrats who believe that there can be no true independence without real democracy, have weakened. So tell us, please, rejectionists, what kind of democracy will you bring? Show us the thin line between refusing foreign intervention and refusing democracy."
