Them and Us [Archives:2000/46/Focus]

By: Hassan Al-Haifi
COMMON SENSE
Judging from the attention that Arab Satellite Channels are directing towards the American Presidential race, it would seem to many an observer that the Arab Satellite Channels are trying to tell the Arab constituencies from Mauritania to the Persian Gulf that what we are seeing is really what we should also be enjoying. It is not clear to the observer if that is what most people perceived, but, as far as our Arab leaders are concerned, they are always the last to perceive anything, let alone something that is in advancement of their people’s welfare and political progress.
For sure, the American people are having the roughest time in determining who their next President will be because for them the choice was not easily decisive. Both candidates did not seem to really present anything substantial, as far as outdoing the situation that Mr. Clinton will leave behind – the best all around domestic situation that has ever been enjoyed by the American people. Thus, it was hard to see which of the candidates could really present a platform that can in fact improve on an already wonderful situation.
Mr. Clinton is perhaps the one who really should be proud of himself from the election results, for the results categorically reflect that not one of the candidates presented that magic appeal brought on by the Clinton Presidency – despite its scandalous sidetracking, and despite the difficulties of getting Israel to understand that the United States wants a real end to the Palestinian issue to climax the legacy of the Clinton Presidency by bringing to a finale the most difficult problem in American foreign relations.
Yet amidst all this who won the election tic-for-tat in the United States, we must try to understand what is the situation in the Arab World in terms of the political progress that has been achieved by the Arab states, despite so many coups and revolts, and what are the prospects for advancement of the political process in the Arab countries?
We first must look at exactly where do we really stand politically? Actually, most Arab countries have yet to develop peaceful transitionary politics, where the will of the people is the first and foremost determinant of the political courses their countries should take. On the other hand, most Arab constituencies would rather do away with all these different Arab states altogether and have them take on some form of federalized regional amalgamation. When speaking to any Arab, one will easily find that he/she does not agree that there should be 22 independent sovereign state with all the components of a sovereign state. One would almost believe that the Arab nation has all the necessary elements for unified sovereign status, in which the positive aspects of one state can make up for the negative aspects of the other and the rich can help counteract the difficulties faced by the poor.
However, these are ideals that are readily found in the Arab “Street”, but realistically are remote in the minds of those Arab leaders who insist that Arab political will is only what these leaders dictate it to be.
Perhaps the only thing that Arab leaders can find in common with what is going on in the United States, is that former President has his son competing for the office of the Presidency of the country. In the Arab world, however the same thing is happening but we must remember that it is not being borne out of competition for the popular or electoral votes – It is a fact of life.
Our Arab leaders in all their different formats – kings, presidents, dictators, emirs, sheiks, etc. – all know quite well that the Arab World has a long way to go politically, before ever coming anywhere near the United States, Britain, France or even Iran, in terms of placing the determinant of the political future of their countries with their people, as it should be accordingly. In fact they are the least interested in ever reaching such level of democracy or for that matter any level of democratic rule! In fact, most Arab leaders care very little about insuring that the people should have the last say in determining any course in the country, let alone the political course. For this reason, one will always find that the “Arab Street” speaks one language and the leaderships are speaking in another, with respect to all the issues faced by the Arab nation whether domestically or regionally.
On the other hand, there is a lot of talk about how much of a mandate the next President of the United States will have when considering the relatively narrow margin of victory, if it can be called that, which the next President will enjoy, especially when considering the almost equal division of both Chambers of Congress between the two leading political parties in the United States. Yet most of the Arab leaders have yet to even seek, let alone obtain, a mandate from their relative constituencies and there is certainly little worry about any divisions of the Parliaments – where they exist – since the Arab “parliaments” are seated by handpicked members “elected” by the leaders themselves. So, how can we expect that there will be agreement between the aspirations of the Arab constituencies and their leaders, when the latter care the least bit about what their constituencies aspire for and who should be responsible for the realization of these aspirations?
What is really frustrating is that despite the knowledge of both the Arab leaders and the Arab constituencies about how modern governments are evolving and responding more and more to their people’s wishes and desires, there is still very little progress to be seen in the political processes for transition in most of the Arab states. There is also very little progress in the awareness of most of the Arab populations as to the proper relationships between the government and the governed. A number of excuses are given for this, going from “cultural” to “religious” to social, but all of these excuses are false if they rely on believing that the cultural or religious or even social justifications for dictatorship or absolute monarchy or totalitarian rule go hand in hand with these authoritarian regimes. In fact, we fully understand Islam to be a fully democratic religion and, in fact came to this world to end all forms of tyranny. We also understand Arab social orders to encourage communal decision-making and participatory government, even in its medieval tribal format. So it is clear that these justifications are merely an exploitation of the ignorance of the general mass population, which these leaders often work hard to maintain, just so the people will never ever opt for greater empowerment and civil liberties.
In looking at the Arab World, its vast resources and long engrained cultural heritage, one would think that the Arab leaders would see sufficient logic in letting their people have a say in how to channel the resources of the land to work towards advancing their people’s welfare. On the contrary, Arab leaders continue to insist that only they who know what is best for their people and any claims to participatory or access rights endanger the stability and welfare of their constituencies.
Moreover, when looking at the different forms of authoritarian rule in the Middle East, particularly in the Arab World, it is amazing to find that the so called advanced states – republics, etc. have not at all shown that they are really responding to their constituent’s will or aspirations. In fact, the monarchies or traditional states seemed to show greater concern for their people’s welfare than those that claim to take on more advanced forms of government.
On the other hand, those states that claim to have adopted parliamentary or pluralistic orders have yet to display any proof that they are indeed based on popular will or detriment. Most states, as such, tend to use such cliches as mere decorative designs to look glamorous on the international arena, whereas a look inside such countries will show that there is a long way to go before these governments are efficient, free of corruption and truly responsive to the people’s aspirations. On the other hand the resources of these countries still lie under the control of the leaders, thus preventing any hope for their constituencies to achieve economic and social progress on their own efforts, because access to such resources is completely forbidden, except to the elements that stand by the regime, as long as the regime continues to breast-feed them out of their people’s resources.
So where are they and where are we? Only our Arab Satellite Channels know for sure.

——
[archive-e:46-v:2000-y:2000-d:2000-11-13-p:./2000/iss46/focus.htm]