Sunday 13 March 2011

On the Nature of Arabic Revolutions

An impression is given, and probably accepted, that objective of the ferment in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, and to a lesser extent in other countries in the region, is to bring secular democracy to a welcoming public. But changing leadership is not enough. The question that must be asked is, “Has the nation’s paradigm changed?” I see no evidence that it has.

An example of this, and the interpretation that individuals put on ‘freedom’, came from a BBC interview with a Turkish university student who wanted freedoms that she did not have now. That is, she wanted to wear an Islamic headscarf to university. At present, she wears a poorly-fitted wig over a headscarf as a form of protest. So the freedom this woman wanted, and we can assume she is not a lone voice, would give direct support to the increasingly conservative Islam threatening to dominate Turkey. This is a country that wants to join the secular European Union, so it is hardly surprising that there is strong opposition to it within the EU.

Almost universally in Islamic states (and in almost all African states regardless of the predominant religion), government is to a greater or lesser degree despotic. Inevitable social change is not acknowledged and pressure builds up resulting in the protests and riots seen across the region.

Tribalism is inherent in these areas. Its hierarchical and conservative nature restricts the ability of society to master the essential quality of civilization, that of continuous refinement. Islam is the perfect religion for managing the expectations of diverse tribal cultures regardless of what sort of government is imposed on them. There is nothing in tribalism or Islam that prevents a despot from obtaining and holding onto power. Citizens will look at the ability of the West to change and to accommodate a variety of views without the need for violence. They will want it for their own country but the structure required to hold such a system in place does not exist anywhere south or east of Israel, the easternmost ‘Western’ country. Even such an expression as ‘country’ will have little meaning in this region, since such a recent concept hardly relates at all to the important factor of tribal hegemony. But it suits a despot because it gives the opportunity to obtain international recognition.

The outcome of these calls for liberation is unlikely to benefit anyone. There is already an increased flow of the disaffected trying to get into Europe. The leadership of some countries may change (although I predict that Gaddafi will hold on to power in Libya, short of an external force removing him) and there will be compromise and appeasement to restore order. Freedoms will be granted, then, as circumstances inevitably change, they will be removed.

It has to be recognised that waiting quietly and patiently in the wings is government by conservative Islam. There is no need for the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood to push for recognition during tumultuous times; they are best served by establishing themselves as an organisation with the structure in place for governing the country in an equitable and stable manner, and wait for popular acclamation to place them where they want to be. The imposition of Sharia law would then be a matter of due process, and the West will have another conservative Islamic state to deal with. Still more people will try to escape religious oppression in the Middle East and the Maghreb.

The alternative to this is that another despot will arise by force or ‘democratic’ vote, and the cycle of rapacious tyranny and repression will begin again. The West will be saved from having to deal with radical Islam, but will have a secular tyrant instead. This may be preferable from the West’s point of view. Still more people will try to obtain asylum in Europe.

Given the rise of conservatism in these countries, I consider that Islamist governments are inevitable, although some may need one or two more despotic cycles before that occurs. What will never happen is that they will reshape themselves into states along the lines of the European democratic model.

Recently, the BBC ran a debate in the Doha Debate series entitled This House believes that Arab revolutions will just produce different dictators. It was held in post-revolutionary Tunis with academic Tunisian and Arab debaters and a presumably a largely Tunisian audience. The consensus at the end of the debate strongly supported the negative, 3 to 1. This indicates to me that these ‘educated’ people do not understand their own or Arabic culture, the role of Islam, the nature of tribalism, their countries, or even human nature.


POST SCRIPT, one year later

The BBC’s This World episode Children of the Revolution, broadcast on 12 February 2012 will leave the viewer with a clear impression of the confidence and success of the Salafist subject of the three Egyptians profiled. The other two, an unemployed man with a telecoms qualification and an American-educated daughter of a wealthy businessman, became appalled as the dreams they had of the revolution turned to dust as the results of the election became known.

The lasting impression of this documentary is of the sharply increasing strength and the intensity of belief of the Islamists. “In victory: magnanimity” has never ever been a virtue of Islam. It was made abundantly clear that the Egyptian Islamists intend to enforce their mandate without compromise or mercy. The Egyptian result will not be the exception in the 'Arab Spring' countries, it will be the new rule.

Am I a Humanist?

Am I a Humanist? HUMANISM ESTABLISHED ITSELF in the late 19 th century as an umbrella term for any disposition of thought stressing the cen...