|
|
|
Mohamed Rabie
Dr. Ahmed Zewail, the only Arab to win the Noble Prize in science, had
published a thought-provoking article in which he challenges Arab
leaders and intellectuals to make a big leap forward toward bridging the
gap that separates Arabs from the advanced nations of the world. He asks
political leaders, intellectuals and religious men "to move away from
the ideologies of the past and the conspiracy theories of the future"
and make a commitment to doing what it takes to stop the Arab decline,
change the direction or the present, and build a new future capable of
restoring the Arab glory of the past. Dr. Zewail identifies what he
calls, "four pillars of change that would support an imperative historic
renaissance for transforming the current state of affairs" in the Arab
world."
The pillars of change could be summarized as follows: First, the
establishment of "a new political system with, at its core, a
constitution defining the democratic principles of human rights, freedom
of speech, and governance through contested elections." A council should
be formed of "a select delegation of honorable intellectuals, respected
political personalities, and thoughtful religious scholars… to debate
and chart a constitution for a final referendum," Second, "the rule of
law must in practice be applied to every individual, independent of
cast, faith, or background." The third states that "the methods used in
education, cultural practices, and scientific research must be
revisited, reviewed, and revitalized." The goal should be to promote
critical thinking and a value system of reasoning, discipline and
teamwork." And fourth, there must be an "overhauling of the Arab media."
There is no doubt that these are good steps that could initiate a
process of societal change and therefore, deserve serious
considerations. And while I support each one of them, I do not believe
that they are enough. In fact, each step had been tried before, but not
in conjunction with the other three ones, and had failed. Arab rulers
are not ready to respond positively to calls for change that has the
potential of curtailing their powers; and no change is possible while
Arab states are run as little farms individually or family owned. Most
Arab countries today are not states ruled by families, but estates owned
by families. Even if all steps were to be applied at once and given the
chance to influence the institutions they are meant to transform, they
would fail long as the sociocultural framework within which all "pillars
of change" must struggle to fulfill their promises remains unchanged.
For example, selecting a delegation of "honorable intellectuals,
respected political personalities, and thoughtful religious scholars" to
debate issues and draft a constitution is a good way to start the
process of change. But the most important question regarding the
selection process remains unanswered; who would do the selection, and
who has the political or moral authority to sanction the final outcome
of the council's work?. Modern history tells us that only in America
delegates were selected and thus had the popular backing and moral
authority to do their job. Moreover, the words "honorable, respected,
and thoughtful" are vague and largely meaningless unless placed within
an acceptable sociocultural context. In addition, no Arab government
would allow free elections to select delegates to convene and debate
unconventional ideas and draft a state or pan-Arab constitution.
In 1983, I was one of a self-appointed committee of four persons to
consider doing something about the then deteriorating situation in the
Arab world. All members of that committee were at the time living in
Washington, DC and teaching at Georgetown University, and thus had
plenty of time to debate the idea at length. At the end, it was
determined that we should do the selection ourselves after consultation
with a few like minded individuals. We also determined that the meeting
should be held in an Arab state, not in a western state; and that the
gathering should not be called a meeting and should not seek a specific
objective or a set of objectives. And since it was not possible to ask
any Arab state for permission to meet on its soil, we decided to smuggle
ourselves into Tunis where we convened in the city of al Hammamat. This
process forced us to limit the number of invitees to few political
activists known for their integrity and about 25 Arab intellectuals,
most of them had American or European passports and therefore needed no
visas to enter Tunis. As a result, several Arab intellectuals who would
have enriched the debate were either overlooked or could not get the
necessary visas to join us. Our host, Dr. Eltahir Labib, had told us
beforehand that it was not possible to get us permission to meet, but
that he would welcome anyone who could get there, and he did. But our
gracious host was, unfortunately, the first causality of an unauthorized
meeting; he lost his job soon after we departed Tunis. A $30,000 grant
from a Kuwaiti businessman had facilitated the convening of the meeting.
The major recommendations produced by the conferees were; first, to ask
Arab governments to honor their own constitutions and apply the law; and
second, to form what came to be known, "The Arab Organization for Human
Rights." But when it was time to pursue the goal of establishing the
organization later in the year, all Arab states that were approached to
give permission to holding a pan-Arab conference to debate the state of
human rights in the Arab world, refused to do so. They, as a result,
forced the organizers to go to Cyprus.
Based on the above, Dr. Zewail, in cooperation and coordination with a
few like minded intellectuals and concerned Arab personalities, should
take the initiative, secure funding, and select a group to meet in a
European state, not in an Arab state, where invitees would be able to
speak their minds, debate all relevant issues freely, and draft the
necessary documents. Thereafter, the conferees should elect a pan-Arab
council to represent them and to try to convince Arab leaders, one at a
time, to consider their recommendations and to press them to implement
recommended steps, at least the non-political ones. As for the proposed
referendum, no Arab state would allow the Arab masses to vote on
anything of this nature; therefore, the council should seek some
legitimacy through the Internet by asking the masses to vote on whatever
documents drafted and action recommended. The conferees should also try
to use whatever power and influence they may have to promote their ideas
and invoke the masses to join the movement for change. Genuine
sociocultural and sociopolitical change cannot succeed unless the masses
believe in it and get involved in it. Even if nothing gets implemented
in due time, the conferees would have produced a blueprint for Arab
political change and societal transformation.
Discrimination in Arab and non-Arab states is unhealthy and unjust; it
causes poverty, exclusion and depressed productivity. In fact, every
socially and politically unjust system is economically unproductive; it
wastes human and natural resources and rare opportunities; and every
system that is economically unproductive is socially and politically
unjust; it misallocates rare resources and valuable assets and
undermines the potential of its citizens. In the current Arab
environment of renewed tribalism, deepened sectarianism, heightened
extremism, increased dependency, and anti-intellectualism neither
justice nor productivity nor unity stands a real chance. There is a need
to acknowledge that the main lines dividing societies today are
sociocultural, not socioeconomic; socioeconomic classes have become
subgroups of the sociocultural ones. In such an environment,
socioeconomic gaps tend to widen and the sociocultural divides to
deepen, causing more poverty and injustice, and the marginalization of
rationalism and intellectualism.
The only transformation that Arab education has experienced during the
last two decades is the commercialization of universities and schools.
Two major things resulted from this process; first, education was
separated from guidance (tarbeyeh); and second, the student has become
the ultimate client to please, not to educate or teach how to succeed in
life and be a good citizen. Schools and universities, as a consequence,
have become specialty shops owned by largely ignorant capitalists
belonging to the 'Robber Barons' era, in which the professor is assigned
the role of a dispensable salesperson, and the student the role of the
most valued customer. And as everyone familiar with customer service
knows, "the customer is always right;" he is the one who ultimately pays
the salaries of professors and enables the barons to make unjustified,
largely unethical profits in exchange for low quality goods. Back in
1976, I argued in a paper on "The Future of Education in the Arab World"
that Arab states consider human resources liabilities, not assets; and
therefore the system was deigned to get rid of them, not to harness
their potentialities. Emigration of talent as a consequence has
continued to be encouraged, not discouraged; it provides unearned
incomes for states, deny the masses the opportunity to have a trusted
and conscious leadership and vastly weakens political dissent.
The media is of tremendous importance to societal transformation,
especially to societies and peoples that do not consider reading a
virtue. But the media that Arabs have today is committed to falsifying
the conscience of the masses, not to educating them. Therefore, a new
media is needed; one that is committed to freedom of speech and
rationalism, not to anti-intellectualism and dogmatism, to promoting
unity, not to heightening sectarianism, to fighting socially bad and
mentally damaging habits like cigarettes and argieleh smoking, and to
defending human rights and protecting the environment. The current Arab
media is part of the problem, not the solution. Throughout history,
Facts and the truth have had difficult times proving themselves and
defending their rationale, particularly in societies that believe in
faith and fate and perceive miracles, myths, rumors, and conspiracy
theories as facts. People, all people, tend to resist attempts to
tarnish the image of a myth, kill a rumor, or stop an exciting story
from being told and retold. The Arab media in general is good at
promoting myths and spreading rumors and conspiracy theories, and bad at
telling the truth and counting the facts.
The prevailing Arab culture is out of date and therefore no longer
competitive; it needs a genuine transformation. There is no doubt that
Arab culture used to be good, even superior in older times, but as the
times changed and Arabs got exposed to the culture of consumerism and
became addicted to consumption, the traditional culture was distorted
and lost its relevancy. What sounds good in Arab culture today is mostly
bad for the health of the culture itself and for the future of Arabs in
general. Ideologically-based and inspired cultures have always been
hostile to freedom of speech and to new ideas and creative thinking;
they are good only at criminalizing dissent and doubting rationality;
they are also intolerant. In fact, no ideology, old or new, being rooted
in sociocultural or socioeconomic or sociopolitical grounds, has ever
encouraged debate, engaged its adversaries in constructive dialogue, or
believed in the democratic principles.
While the poor in the West are fighting their way out of the old ghettos
and working hard to rid themselves of the ghetto mentality, Muslim
conservatives everywhere are fighting their way into new ghettos and
working harder to wed themselves to the ghetto mentality. However, the
ghettos they are creating and glorifying are different; they are
cultural ghettos that undermine the capacity of younger minds to think
rationally and recognize the imperatives of the times in which they
live. It is hard for me to understand why the overwhelming majority of
Arab intellectuals still lack the capacity to realize the extent of the
cultural impediment, and cannot find the courage to acknowledge it and
face it.
Even Arab intellectuals who have spent a good deal of their lives and
most of their time talking about democracy do not believe in democracy,
not even in the democratic principles. They believe only in what serves
their interests, and are committed to the "principles" that foster their
social statuses. And while they continue to criticize Arab rulers for
lack of respect for human rights and democracy, they have failed to
institute democracy every time they had a chance to do so. Every Arab
institution, even in the West functions today as a "dokkan," or a corner
grocery store in a small village or in a slum; and when the owner of the
dokkan (dokkanji) goes away to attend a wedding or a funeral or takes a
trip, he closes the dokkan, leaving all customers waiting patiently and
sometimes praying for his safe return. The Arab state, however, while
being a larger dokkan with more responsibilities, is subject to less
accountability. Just imagine how could an Arab government, facing a
survival problem take a decision to face the challenge while its ruler
is being treated or vacationing overseas.
If we look today at the political map of the world, we will notice that
every industrialized and knowledge society is a democracy; in contrast,
every society that still lives in pre-industrial times is either a
dictatorship, a theocracy, or a hodgepodge of feuding tribes and
competing ethnic groups struggling to build a viable system of
governance, or just a failing state. Democracy as a political system was
a byproduct of the great scientific revolutions, geographical
discoveries and societal transformations, including the religious
reformation that swept the European continent during the renaissance,
enlightenment and the industrial ages. No Arab or Islamic or Third world
state living in the agricultural or tribal times and adhering to
traditional cultures of the past has witnessed similar transformations;
and therefore, has developed the capacity to understand the promise and
menace of democracy. In fact, most Third World states that have chosen
contested elections, like Algeria, Colombia, Egypt, Kenya, Pakistan,
Venezuela, Yemen and Zimbabwe have ended up with all the menaces of
democracy and none of its promises.
What is needed at this stage in Arab history is, as Dr. Zewail
succinctly put it, "to promote a commitment to the democratic principles
of human rights, freedom of speech, and governance through contested
elections." However, as I argued in my book, "The Making of History," I
believe that the greatest accomplishment of democracy was not realized
by instituting regular elections, but by transforming itself from a mere
political system of governance and into a sociocultural value that
recognizes equality of rights and responsibilities, respects others'
opinions and tolerates dissent. If democracy succeeds as a sociocultural
value, it will succeed as a political system; if democracy fails as a
sociocultural value, it will fail as a political system. Listening one
day to the BBC radio discussing abortion in England, a young woman said:
I believe that abortion is wrong but I have no right to pass judgment on
others' beliefs. When the average Muslim and Arab man and woman adopt
this basic attitude, then, and only then, we could start dreaming of
democracy.
This is the link to Dr. Zewail's article
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/ahmed-zewail-we-arabs-must-wage-a-new-form-of-jihad-413101.html
**********************
Back to Top
© Arab World
Books |
|