Arab Revolution of 2011

The Arab Revolution of 2011

Reported images of current uprisings in several Arab countries show that the protesters are overwhelmingly young males. That image does not give us any specific indication for the reasons of the uprisings. The youth is at any rate the section of the population that can withstand the hardship and dangers involved in unrests, and has an interest in the future. Slogans and banners provide a better source for a more accurate assessment of the movement. Written or uttered words in the streets of Tunis, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Bahrain, Sudan, and Yemen appear to be generally against unemployment, poor economic conditions, and political repression. One common element is that the rulers of these countries, or the family in the case of Bahrain, have been in office for decades. However, there is no obvious demand for democracy, although there are direct attacks on the person of the autocratic leaders in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. Protesters seem to be motivated more by economic and social reasons than political. They seem to be more concerned with their economic well being and human dignity than with having a democratic regime.

Revolutions are generally spontaneous, emotionally charged, and thus unorganized, unless they are carried out by an ideological group for power grab. Consequently, they cannot sustain themselves. Organization comes in the aftermath of the revolution and after an extended dispute. This dispute is nevertheless the democratic process, the initiation to democracy; but the revolutionaries will get bogged down in extended dialogue while the improvement of economic conditions will take the back seat. This period of uncertainty may easily lead to further unrest. Some ideological elements may flourish in the muddy waters of instability, and become players in the political organization of the country.

Unless a new ideology is invented, the historical experience shows that the probable ideologies to emerge from the chaos may be nationalistic, economic, or religious. Nationalism became taboo since WWII; communism became taboo since the Soviet rule, and capitalism is in disrepute with the recent global economic recession in the hands of greedy corporations. This leaves us with the possibility of religious ideologies that have never been in disrepute despite centuries-long religious repressions and wars. Religion in fact is on the rise all over the world. The militancy of some Islamic extremists is of concern to many countries. It may be a fair prognosis that the emerging power in the aftermath of the Arab Revolution will be religion, not democracy. The West may be tempted, and may try to influence the course of regime changes in the Muslim countries experiencing revolutions. If the recent history would be our guide, the Western influence could take the form of actively promoting “democracy” in these countries. This is where a word of caution is necessary.

Democracy has always been in the forefront of the Western ideological warfare, although human rights were also advocated. The assumption may have been that human rights were consequential of “democracy”. This assumption is clearly flawed. Democratic system does not necessarily produce true democracy, people's rights thus people power. History gives us many examples of autocracy practiced within “democratic systems”. On the other hand, human rights are at their best in the Scandinavian monarchies. Misuse, and even overuse, of the term “democracy” ripped it from its true meaning. More importantly for the Arab countries, democracy, as a concept, is closely associated with the West and western colonialism. Those societies consider democracy, linked to globalization, a western tool for expansionism, reminiscent of colonialism. Democracy is more fragile especially when introduced from top to down. Direct or covert Western involvement in the shaping of post-revolutionary regimes will create the unwanted consequences more probably than not. The exacerbating effects of numerous military operations worldwide since Viet Nam war in 1964-75, or of covert operations ever since Mossadegh affair in 1953 constitute the basis of this assumption. Even the benevolent financial aid policy does not win the hearts of developing societies. Such aid is perceived either as a demeaning charity or buying out loyalty.

While the corner stone of a civil society is the individual rights (human rights), civility in society mandates community conscience of the individual (limitations of individual rights with the interests of the community - communitarianism). The meaning of community however differs in the Western and Muslim cultures. It is the civic community in the West, whereas it is the “ummah” in the Muslim community, i.e. a religion-based worldwide community that goes beyond national borders, and racial or ethnic identity. This means when Muslims are in a position to make a decision between a civic and a religious duty, they will opt for the religious duty that they know, and not for the civic duty that they do not trust. The explanation that Islam and democracy cannot marry is simplistic thus misleading. A more accurate description is that the concept of civic life is foreign to Muslim philosophy. A Muslim society may readily accept and easily go through the motions of “democracy” as a political process without however achieving a true democratic and civic oriented society, just as autocracies are practiced under “democracy”. The political system Muslims historically believe and trust is leadership, not the community or even unity. This is a system where people expect to be led rather than to lead. That is the main reason why democracy is seen as anathema to Islam, and why leaders in Muslim countries rule for decades as autocrats.

On the other hand, the notions of honor and dignity are very strong among Muslims, even stronger than they are in the West, I dare say. Islam does not preach to turn your other cheek when one is struck. For example, an Englishman may shrug at an insult; but a Muslim will fight and even kill because of it (honor killings that the West recently became aware of is an example). Therefore, the promotion of human rights would be more meaningful and acceptable to Muslims. Human rights address directly to individual’s interests, instead of “democracy” addressing an abstract political concept foreign to them. Human rights like economic and social freedoms, and equality particularly, will have a deep resonance among Muslims, especially in Muslim women who are the pariah of the society. Winning the Muslim women will win the entire Muslim world to the modern international community.

The revolutions started in the Arab world, which may also spread to some parts of Africa, are in fact an opportunity for the people power to prevail in that region. However, this opportunity must be handled delicately using the same soft power of electronic medium in cyberspace, which helped launch these revolutions in the first place. The same medium should be used to propagate from person to person the wisdom of human rights and equality especially among women who literally shape the future generations. Democracy is more robust when it is the product of the people. Human rights are at the core of the human life, not democracy. Democracy does not necessarily produce human rights, but human rights unmistakably produce democracy.
22 February 2011