Thursday, 14 April 2011
Arab crowds from Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen clamoring for change. (File photo)
There is little denying that the proponents of democratic change see from Yemen to Libya and Bahrain to Egypt a sea of populous change as a harbinger for better things to come. The fact this wasn’t planned, orchestrated or otherwise engineered other than by rising discontent of youth was a shock to the existing established order in these countries.
Social media both highlighted governments’ disconnect with the masses as it unleashed its power, making it perhaps the most effective instrument of change. Suddenly the blogger with his laptop or iPhone has become more powerful than the militant with a gun.
Social media both highlighted governments’ disconnect with the masses as it unleashed its power, making it perhaps the most effective instrument of change. Suddenly the blogger with his laptop or iPhone has become more powerful than the militant with a gun.
As welcoming as accountability and change are in a social order, we have to also look beyond the immediate rejoicing of “change.” What political and social order will emerge once the chanting in the streets has brought about the change?
One of the major concerns for bringing change where established precepts of democracy are weak can actually endanger the political and social stability of the countries in question. Lack of an independent judiciary, an educated population and a free press coupled with decades of sycophantic government apparatus all hinder the move toward democracy.
It took three weeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but it has been seven years of strife and Iraq has less semblance of order than a bunch of kindergarten kids around an ice-cream truck. It took two months to dislodge the Taliban from power, but 10 years later the meaning, and more importantly, the benefits of democracy are still alien to a farmer in Herat in Afghanistan.
Iran’s move from the dictatorial hold of the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to the Ayatollah’s authoritarian reign was relatively quick, but decades later an intolerant theocracy stamps only its version of “democracy” in Iran. Egypt heralded a change that shocked everyone, but we sit today wondering if the regime is not the same with only the actors having changed in the cast.
As much as democracy may well be the goal, the more important aspect of collective political maturity needs careful thought and nurturing. Street power as an instrument of change is all well and good and provides dramatic footage on the television, but the fact is that this does not run the economy or the government.
In a sense, take Libya or Yemen’s case in point. Change of leadership is inevitable but where does an alternate political option exist that can manage and run things? In Iraq, the thought of a pro-Saddam militia fighting on was a misnomer. The more dangerous thing happened: the country just imploded into chaos. It is more likely that countries like Libya, Syria and Yemen would face the same fate where the change of leadership will happen to be then followed by years of strife.
Sadly, neither the United States nor NATO nor indeed the Arab League can cut and paste solutions into these complicated social and political networks. It was thought the best and brightest of former US President George W. Bush’s government (if indeed there were such people around in the first place) would put into place better governance in Iraq resulted in more chaos and resistance.
The solutions for political maturity have to come from within these societies, and while the intellect may well exist to lead the process, the problem remains how do you replace decades of power brokers in tribal and feudal systems overnight.
Added to the problem is the fact that all this change is happening in countries that border on some very affluent Arab countries, where, luckily, the leadership has managed to display benevolent leadership. Among countries characterized by good governance would certainly be the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Still, Yemen’s internal turmoil will have some effect on its neighboring countries. The turmoil has been in the “have not” countries (with the exception of Libya, where one could argue the wealth never trickled down.) The “haves” of the Arab world have always maintained robust social spending on health, education and services; the current crisis in the Arab world has spurred this spending even higher. In addition, the social comfort for nationals within the affluent Arab countries means that social turmoil is currently not on the agenda.
Arab proponents of change should be cognizant that change for sake of change is not what should be the order of the day. What is needed are reforms and transitions, not revolutions for revolution’s sake. As has been seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and, to some extent Iran, the benefits of a revolution or sudden change without a succession system will impinge on the social benefits of why change was desired in the first place.
(Anwer Q. Sher is a prolific columnist and author, and former CEO of Union National Bank. He can be reached at: aqsher@gmail.com)
One of the major concerns for bringing change where established precepts of democracy are weak can actually endanger the political and social stability of the countries in question. Lack of an independent judiciary, an educated population and a free press coupled with decades of sycophantic government apparatus all hinder the move toward democracy.
It took three weeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but it has been seven years of strife and Iraq has less semblance of order than a bunch of kindergarten kids around an ice-cream truck. It took two months to dislodge the Taliban from power, but 10 years later the meaning, and more importantly, the benefits of democracy are still alien to a farmer in Herat in Afghanistan.
Iran’s move from the dictatorial hold of the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to the Ayatollah’s authoritarian reign was relatively quick, but decades later an intolerant theocracy stamps only its version of “democracy” in Iran. Egypt heralded a change that shocked everyone, but we sit today wondering if the regime is not the same with only the actors having changed in the cast.
As much as democracy may well be the goal, the more important aspect of collective political maturity needs careful thought and nurturing. Street power as an instrument of change is all well and good and provides dramatic footage on the television, but the fact is that this does not run the economy or the government.
In a sense, take Libya or Yemen’s case in point. Change of leadership is inevitable but where does an alternate political option exist that can manage and run things? In Iraq, the thought of a pro-Saddam militia fighting on was a misnomer. The more dangerous thing happened: the country just imploded into chaos. It is more likely that countries like Libya, Syria and Yemen would face the same fate where the change of leadership will happen to be then followed by years of strife.
Sadly, neither the United States nor NATO nor indeed the Arab League can cut and paste solutions into these complicated social and political networks. It was thought the best and brightest of former US President George W. Bush’s government (if indeed there were such people around in the first place) would put into place better governance in Iraq resulted in more chaos and resistance.
The solutions for political maturity have to come from within these societies, and while the intellect may well exist to lead the process, the problem remains how do you replace decades of power brokers in tribal and feudal systems overnight.
Added to the problem is the fact that all this change is happening in countries that border on some very affluent Arab countries, where, luckily, the leadership has managed to display benevolent leadership. Among countries characterized by good governance would certainly be the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Still, Yemen’s internal turmoil will have some effect on its neighboring countries. The turmoil has been in the “have not” countries (with the exception of Libya, where one could argue the wealth never trickled down.) The “haves” of the Arab world have always maintained robust social spending on health, education and services; the current crisis in the Arab world has spurred this spending even higher. In addition, the social comfort for nationals within the affluent Arab countries means that social turmoil is currently not on the agenda.
Arab proponents of change should be cognizant that change for sake of change is not what should be the order of the day. What is needed are reforms and transitions, not revolutions for revolution’s sake. As has been seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and, to some extent Iran, the benefits of a revolution or sudden change without a succession system will impinge on the social benefits of why change was desired in the first place.
(Anwer Q. Sher is a prolific columnist and author, and former CEO of Union National Bank. He can be reached at: aqsher@gmail.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment