From revolution to reform address [Archives:2005/838/Opinion]
By Prof. Dr. Abdulaziz al-Tarb
It seems that the Arab discourse has completely got rid of the slogan of revolution. A few years ago, any notion took slogans as a way to express itself. Writings heralding revolution accumulated: political revolution which turns authority's conduct topsy-turvy; cultural revolution which opens the door of modernism; literary revolution which annihilates aesthetic forms, etc. Every decision or achievement was labeled “revolution” even the simplest ones. yet, other things did really revolt. Much of the change happened gradually under of the influence of the world surrounding us. Many things were imposed despite resistance to change. The word “reform” remained for one century dubious and illicit, whoever picked it up was accused of evasion from radical change. The harvest of revolutions was meager but the word “revolution” imposed itself on all people and opened an unclosed door to competition.
Suddenly, the slogan of revolution disappeared and the word itself became unpleasantly suspicious. Reform replaced it. Everybody was calling for reform and priding oneself on being the first to adopt it. Competition was so fierce among three sides vying each other, each wanting to prove itself the godfather of reform.
The first side is external. It claims it launched the reform process, shaking the thrones of rulers, heartening citizens, and encouraging criticism. Baghdad was not Paris but the allies liberated it and Beirut may be the Arab version of the Ukrainian experience. That may be an irregularity because reform does not require swift and radical change. However, reform has started its course and tomorrow will not be anything like today.
Yet, this reform is blemished with the interests of its foreign supporters. Are these interests in contradiction with the people concerned with reform? Should persuasion come before achievement or should it be the other way round? What would happen if the concerned people discovered they were puppets in the hand of the elite and opinion shapers? What would be their reaction if they discovered that they were the victims of local players and those who try to protect their interests under the slogan of resistance? What if history writes decades later that they were so enslaved that they gave up their interests and freedom?
The second is the official side which says it does consider reform and is so dedicated to achieving it. But the complexity of the situation and the risk of taking adventure necessitate, and are still necessitating gradual implementation. Public demonstrations, from this side's point of view, are incited by invisible political mind-twisting powers. This side always thinks that religious extremism is present everywhere. Seizing the opportunity that the era of freedom also fights terrorism, this side puts the responsibility for slowness and delay of reform on extremists. Therefore, the new course should take centuries before it grows into the level of any of east European countries. it can be said that east European countries had no religious extremists, dormant cells, jihad against ignorance and fallacy, revival movements, social conservatism, pathologic hatred of feminism, or outdated traditions of harsh suppression. Can then comparison be fair with this difference in conditions? Algeria started reform when east European reform did but the former almost sank in civil war and floundered on a tough course before it restored stability and adopted gradual reform formula.
The third side claims that reform is possible if the initiative is entrusted to the civil community and that religious extremism is a declinable phenomenon if people are given the chance to see a fair secure future and overcome obstacles. Reform should not be monopolized. It is no revolution and is gradual in nature.
Gradualness, however, entails making consecutive achievements, introducing initiative-supporting spirit, and allowing all people to contribute. Staying where we are and announcing with no achievement will kill reform in the name of reform, and is a temporary technique to protect interests. Actually, what threatens interests is deterioration of the situation.
However, objectors to the last proposal suspect the maturity of the civil community to face society's challenges. Maybe it is a proposal just to serve the interests of some parties after which it will be laid aside. Do they have real solutions and alternatives or just imported slogans and cliches?
The future of reform of future depends on the interaction between these three parties. It is likely than no one single proposal of them will prevail. Reading the future of reform, one can see two diametrically opposed directions: the pessimistic perusal that the technique to win time and announcing with no achieving will work until the storm is abated and the foreign sides are realized with no great effect on the internal affairs. The civil community would vanish amidst a confrontation with the complicated condition. This would further deepen the gap of backwardness and some decades later our dream would not be to follow the west but to walk on the footsteps of African countries. The optimistic scenario reads as follows: Foreign interests would causally achieve some of the national interests. The timesaving technique would suffer a compulsory retreat from many official stances. The civil community would not achieve all its dreams but would realize as much basic aspirations as those required by a modern community.
Day after day, we are observing this congestion and contest among reform address. Nobody can say for sure that one of the above two scenarios would beat the other. Those who dream about realizing the desired achievements with a miracle, are uttering the word of reform and continue dreaming about revolution. They are the old guards in every Arab capital.
I believe that it is necessary that rulers should reconsider the philosophy of reform and establish governments respected by their people and present the approach to reform, change and free elections. They ought not to rush for foreign aids. Civil community organizations should then act as a consultant and supervisor of those changes. Can this be done as we are approaching elections in many Arab countries?
——
[archive-e:838-v:13-y:2005-d:2005-05-02-p:opinion]
