Close up:

Interactive reform!

---

By Salama A Salama

Reform, something that Arab regimes have been trying to put off for decades, is now a primary concern for analysts, particularly those eager to prove that reform had already started before the United States came up with its Greater Middle East concept. Some claim that legislative accomplishments have been made, emergency laws abrogated and publishing restrictions eased. It is simply a matter of time before reform is complete. The wheels are in motion; the powers that be are taking good care of things. We have nothing to worry about, we are told: everything is under control.

Such is the message given to US and European envoys touring Arab capitals, a message now recycled, with more or less the same wording, for the benefit of Arab and Muslim nations. Violence in the Middle East, Israel's crimes against the Palestinians, and the occupation of Iraq, are -- we are told -- holding back reform and creating an unfavourable climate for progress. Violence, however, is a lame excuse for backwardness. One doesn't have to repress freedoms, suspend democracy and violate people's rights in order to resist foreign aggression.

The excuses are not going to deflect foreign pressures. These pressures have lessened, somewhat, but they are coming back with a different tone. Washington said that it does not wish to impose reform from the outside. Yet torrents of proposals are still being debated by the EU, with NATO and G8 involvement. Some people have been advising the US to act more firmly -- use the stick more than the carrot, and back dissidents in order to force regimes to introduce reforms.

There is a false sense of satisfaction among Arab regimes, a sense that they are doing everything possible to protect their nations and systems from sudden changes, to prevent anarchists and Islamists from taking over, should free elections be held. There are forces, active within the political elites and ruling Arab regimes, which oppose speedy reform. And there are forces that have despaired of reform ever taking place. Such disparity of opinion is seen within Egypt's National Democratic Party (NDP) as well as within Syria's ruling regime. It is seen in Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. The recent acts of fanatical terror in Madrid suggest that reforms carried out in Tunisia and Morocco were inadequate.

Democracy is being addressed in most Arab countries on a most superficial, perfunctory level. The tools and mechanisms of democracy lack spirit and vigour. We are left with the impression that the mere appearance of voters at the polling stations would guarantee good governance. Yet, partisan life still proceeds in the old way, with power concentrated in the hands of a minority and with the latter determined not to share power, not even with newer generations who are closer to the spirit of the age.

A half-year ago, the NDP initiated dialogue with opposition parties. Nothing happened. The dialogue in question could not proceed beyond cosmetic changes, could not address such crucial matters as constitutional amendments and the abolition of the state of emergency. What kind of reform can be introduced under an extraordinary situation that has lasted over 20 years, a situation that has left its mark on all aspects of life and thinking, on the way public figures are selected, on the way parties and NGOs are allowed to form and function?

One of the reasons the Tunis summit has failed is that Arab societies have turned into an arena for foreign intervention. Foreign ministry envoys and security officials of other countries now just walk through our doors, peek through our windows, tell us how to reform, and advise us on how to end terror. Not their fault, ours.