An anti-government protester puts up posters of Saudi
Arabia's King Abdullah with an "X" during a funeral procession in east of Manama
16 September 2011. (Photo: Reuters - Hamad I Mohammed)
From the moment it started on its journey, beginning in Tunisia and passing through Egypt and other places, it appears as though the train of change is chugging on and there is no stopping it. That is the reality that many regimes – Arab and regional – have come to recognize.
Chief among them is Saudi Arabia, the “official sponsor” of the Arab system.
But also Qatar, the economically ascendant oil principality eager to take over
Saudi’s regional role after inheriting from the kingdom the honor of hosting the
largest US military presence in the Gulf since the 2003 Iraq war.
Even Iran, with its strong regional presence and controversial nuclear program, has realized this. The Iranian regime, however, has a different style of interfering and exercising its influence based on its interests and alliances, but that would require a whole separate discussion, which is not possible in this article.
As such, it is necessary to search for solutions and ways to deal with the crises these regimes may face in their own countries after the uprisings of the “Arab Spring.”
The citizens of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are not better off socially or politically than the people who rose up. It is not like they, of all people, frolic in freedom and enjoy the virtues of democracy. Their populations might be tempted by the unprecedented wave of protests that brought the people back to the realm of political agency from which they had been excluded, a period when citizens were reduced to fodder for the whims of despots and subjects of their tyranny.
All these regimes have claimed to support the popular uprisings, even though their nature, structure, and practices are built on a culture hostile to democracy. Faced with this train whose progress they cannot stop, there is nothing better for these regimes than to sneak onto and ride the train, then seize it and control its direction either directly or through local agents.
With all their wealth and alliances with major powers, these regimes have succeeded to a large degree in controlling the movement for change, setting its tempo and directing its fate. The same thing happened in more than one place by turning peaceful popular movements toward militarization and fueling the fire of sectarian strife by supporting this or that side.
The way the regimes in the countries of the uprisings dealt with their people provided a fertile ground for these outside regimes to interfere. This course of events has frustrated a major opportunity for change which had actually begun as a spontaneous, popular movement in response to the circumstances that made this kind of explosion inevitable.
Work was done to gradually push matters into the hands of some of the political Islamists who have been dreaming of building a power structure in their own image. These movements are in line with the nature of the interfering regimes ideologically and in the political and economic choices that illustrate this ideology.
Instead of the freedom and people’s sovereignty for which the revolutions erupted, the current post-revolution scenes are defined by restrictions on public freedom and monopolies on power. Dominating this scene are Islamists supported by petrodollars who submit to anti-nationalist agendas. They are supervised by self-appointed custodians, guided by the legacy of their “pious ancestors,” that seek to please God...and the United States.
The best proof of this subservience is the declaration made by the Egyptian Muslim Brothers that “they will respect and are completely committed to international treaties,” in reference to the Camp David Accords and Israel’s security.
Al-Nahda, Tunisia’s Muslim Brotherhood, also rejected a proposal to include in the draft of the new constitution an article stipulating criminalizing normalization with Israel under the pretext that the “Tunisian constitution is going to last longer than Israel,” according to one of its leaders.
All this is in addition to the economic policies that further marginalize the poor – a continuation of the policies of the toppled tyrants. This time, the tyranny is cloaked in religiosity.
It appears that the oil powers and faith peddlers on both sides of the Gulf – Iran and Arab states – along with Turkey’s neo-Ottomans were able to prevent the changes of the “Arab Spring” from taking root thanks to the complicity of the great powers and the deep-rooted, backwards structures in Arab societies.
The spontaneous popular movements did not translate into effective political participation – a necessary condition to produce a modern political consciousness that could pave the way toward a real democratic transition in the Arab world. It is obvious that this kind of transition is not to the liking of those who claim to support it and stand by the people calling for it.
Tareq Aziza is a Syrian writer.
The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect Al-Akhbar's editorial policy.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
Even Iran, with its strong regional presence and controversial nuclear program, has realized this. The Iranian regime, however, has a different style of interfering and exercising its influence based on its interests and alliances, but that would require a whole separate discussion, which is not possible in this article.
As such, it is necessary to search for solutions and ways to deal with the crises these regimes may face in their own countries after the uprisings of the “Arab Spring.”
The citizens of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are not better off socially or politically than the people who rose up. It is not like they, of all people, frolic in freedom and enjoy the virtues of democracy. Their populations might be tempted by the unprecedented wave of protests that brought the people back to the realm of political agency from which they had been excluded, a period when citizens were reduced to fodder for the whims of despots and subjects of their tyranny.
All these regimes have claimed to support the popular uprisings, even though their nature, structure, and practices are built on a culture hostile to democracy. Faced with this train whose progress they cannot stop, there is nothing better for these regimes than to sneak onto and ride the train, then seize it and control its direction either directly or through local agents.
With all their wealth and alliances with major powers, these regimes have succeeded to a large degree in controlling the movement for change, setting its tempo and directing its fate. The same thing happened in more than one place by turning peaceful popular movements toward militarization and fueling the fire of sectarian strife by supporting this or that side.
The way the regimes in the countries of the uprisings dealt with their people provided a fertile ground for these outside regimes to interfere. This course of events has frustrated a major opportunity for change which had actually begun as a spontaneous, popular movement in response to the circumstances that made this kind of explosion inevitable.
Work was done to gradually push matters into the hands of some of the political Islamists who have been dreaming of building a power structure in their own image. These movements are in line with the nature of the interfering regimes ideologically and in the political and economic choices that illustrate this ideology.
This is not a reductionist analysis or an exercise
in intellectual luxury. It is part of the reality of what has happened, most
notably in Tunisia and Egypt. That is, the countries whose people were able to
achieve the first task of the revolution through non-violent means: toppling the
head of the regime. But the revolutions were then infiltrated and their founders
bypassed. There is an ongoing attempt to abort these revolutions by turning them
into a power struggle rather than popular movements seeking to build a modern
democratic state where freedoms flourish, human rights are respected, and the
standard of living is improved.
Instead of the freedom and people’s sovereignty for which the revolutions erupted, the current post-revolution scenes are defined by restrictions on public freedom and monopolies on power. Dominating this scene are Islamists supported by petrodollars who submit to anti-nationalist agendas. They are supervised by self-appointed custodians, guided by the legacy of their “pious ancestors,” that seek to please God...and the United States.
The best proof of this subservience is the declaration made by the Egyptian Muslim Brothers that “they will respect and are completely committed to international treaties,” in reference to the Camp David Accords and Israel’s security.
Al-Nahda, Tunisia’s Muslim Brotherhood, also rejected a proposal to include in the draft of the new constitution an article stipulating criminalizing normalization with Israel under the pretext that the “Tunisian constitution is going to last longer than Israel,” according to one of its leaders.
All this is in addition to the economic policies that further marginalize the poor – a continuation of the policies of the toppled tyrants. This time, the tyranny is cloaked in religiosity.
It appears that the oil powers and faith peddlers on both sides of the Gulf – Iran and Arab states – along with Turkey’s neo-Ottomans were able to prevent the changes of the “Arab Spring” from taking root thanks to the complicity of the great powers and the deep-rooted, backwards structures in Arab societies.
The spontaneous popular movements did not translate into effective political participation – a necessary condition to produce a modern political consciousness that could pave the way toward a real democratic transition in the Arab world. It is obvious that this kind of transition is not to the liking of those who claim to support it and stand by the people calling for it.
Tareq Aziza is a Syrian writer.
The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect Al-Akhbar's editorial policy.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment