The Problem with Arab Political Elites

[Solomon2]

​

Amal Mousa
Monday, 28 Apr, 2014

Opinion: The Problem with Arab Political Elites
For the political elites in the Arab world to accept the idea that their societies are witnessing a real period of tribulation whose consequences cannot be postponed, they not only have to rethink the nature of their development policies, but also adopt political reforms and develop freedoms in their countries. But they also need to carry out an intellectual revolution in terms of scrutinizing basic intellectual concepts, without which any reform will be meaningless.

The way in which some of the ruling elites act, make decisions, formulate policies, and sign conventions and agreements is necessarily the product of a certain political culture.

From this perspective, it is impossible to continue with the official political culture prevalent in the second half of the twentieth century. Given the developments and transformations in society, this culture is neither valid nor accepted today. For instance, the concept of political power should be detached from authoritarianism, the top–down relationship between the state and people, patriarchy, and seeing the people merely as subjects. On the face of things these issues may appear irrelevant. But it is impossible for patriarchal mentalities ruling republican regimes to produce a modern political culture that is responsive to the global values of humanism and modernity.

The core concept that concerns this article is that of the prestige of the state. It has been one of the most controversial concepts recently circulating in Arab media and political statements. As a concept, it is, I believe, a good example to look at and will help bring things into focus.

Is today’s concept of the prestige of the state the same as the one prevalent during the 1960s when Arab countries began to gain their independence one after the other? The concept of the prestige of the state was then based on two principles: first, political legitimacy, which was then associated with achieving independence from colonial control; second, the nature of Arab societies at the time and the Arabs’ readiness to be subjects rather than citizens due to their educational, cultural and economic situation. We can conclude that the political elites ruling in the early stages of the building of independent Arab states somehow deliberately mixed national prestige and dictatorship together. This confusion persisted, with relative differences, in many countries.

Within this context, we can partially understand the way in which the ruling and cultural elites, as well as the opposition and many Arabs in general, felt protective towards the prestige of their states—and their condemnation of what they saw as any attempts to undermine it.

The image of the politician is surrounded by a halo of sanctity in the Arab imagination. Yet, some in our societies follow with pleasure how newspapers in France, Britain and the US scrutinize and criticize their political figures.

The aim of tackling this topic is not to defend chaos and disorder, which is unrelated to freedom of expression and its social and communal practices. The aim is to alert people to the need to reexamine the concept of the prestige of the state, and for people to understand the idea that criticism—however bitter—does not damage the state as much as it shows how politically advanced and open to criticism and the freedom of expression a given country is. I believe that the purely political concept of the prestige of the state is a thing of the past. The majority of the recent Arab protests that violated the prestige of the state had purely economic demands. Even Arab revolutions are basically the product of economic disappointment and governments’ failures to live up to the expectations of Arab societies, particularly the youth. Within this framework, we can conclude that the economic dimension has become a key component of the prestige of the state—in contrast with the idea that this prestige is purely political.

The economy is the beating heart of a state’s prestige and legitimacy. The more capable the economy is of solving social problems, the more stable the country. Therefore, pompous speeches about the prestige of the state and the glories of history are meaningless. The relationship between the state and society is based on a clear and accurate contract. The most important terms of this contract are the government’s economic commitments, because only unemployment, poverty and a rising cost of living can mobilize people—particularly Arabs.

Amal Mousa is a Tunisian writer and poet

 

[al-Hasani]

I did not read this but there is not a problem with any political elite. The rulers largely reflect the people. Sad but true. This goes for all the ME and Muslim world and nearly all of the non-Western world.

Let's face it. Western democracy is a alien ideology for the ancient ME.

It was that for Europe as well not until long ago. It takes a lot of time to implement properly.

 

[Solomon2]

I did not read this but -

Then read!

Don't blame me for the headline; the mods here forbid me from altering them, or naming a thread differently from the quoted article. I would have titled it, "Sources of legitimacy for Arab political elites" - and like you, I think the analysis is incomplete. That doesn't mean elements of it shouldn't provoke discussion.

 

[al-Hasani]

Then read!

Don't blame me for the headline; the mods here forbid me from altering them, or naming a thread differently from the quoted article. I would have titled it, "Sources of legitimacy for Arab political elites" - and like you, I think the analysis is incomplete. That doesn't mean elements of it shouldn't provoke discussion.

Well, just based on the title alone I can guess what she is talking about. I am just countering the title alone. Nothing more and nothing less.

Anyway read it quickly. Nothing new. Of course all those revolutions are mostly about economy and secondary personal rights. Often those two go hand in hand. Historically speaking this has been seen in every major revolution.

 

[Solomon2]

Anyway read it quickly. Nothing new.

So broadly speaking the writer's analysis is correct and nothing more needs to be added?

 

[al-Hasani]

So broadly speaking the writer's analysis is correct and nothing more needs to be added?

Well, what do you think as an observer from the outside?

The many uprisings/revolutions in the Arab world must be a good sign for you as this means that people are starting to challenge their rulers and want progress. All something completely normal when a country is experiencing political, economic and social changes.

As long as we won't see any major catastrophic events like WW1, WW2 and other events that have shaped European history and we reach the end goal then there is little to complain about.

History tells us all that such drastic changes do not arrive "for free" and without sacrifice.

On the other hand I see Israel resembling an apartheid state more for each year which is a shame.

 

[Solomon2]

Well, what do you think as an observer from the outside?

I think I've been out of my depth regarding Tunisia and Egypt for some time now; their politics move faster than I can follow in my limited time available, and their are no precedents I can think of for the scale of the amazing mass uprising Egypt experienced to oust the M-B. Well, maybe the Philippines...

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

Leftards, their ego.

 

[Infoman]

The problem with Arab political elites is that they are Zionist tools.

The only one who is not is Assad, that is why the gulf Arabs and Israel support al Qaeda linked militants attacking Syria.

 

[asad71]

@
al-Hasani

1.Post Ottoman the Arabs have been in a painful trauma. The magnificence of al-Andalusia, the greatness of the golden age of the caliphs of Baghdad, the conquests of territories/peoples from the Atlantic to Indo-Gangetic valley and deep into C Asia and S Europe are memories that cause frustration. The Arab contribution to human civilization through medicine, astronomy, mathematics, etc are recounted usually. But perhaps the greater contribution of post Islam Arabs to humanity are the concepts of democracy, human rights, law, equality, rights of women,social justice, economic fair play, etc. Intellectuals would be thinking and talking about these latter concepts not so much about adherence as about flouting by the rich/powerful/ruling elite.

2. In short, the Arabs who had emancipated themselves overnight though Islam and had spread The Message to all corners of earth,do not seem to follow the tenets themselves.

 

[al-Hasani]

@asad71

If we are brutally honest then the downfall began when the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258. This had tremendous impact not only on the Arab world but the entire Muslim world and even the entire world at that time. The Golden Age of Islam ended there and from there on the Islamic world regressed. Compare all the later Muslim Empires, Sultanates, Emirates (Arab as well) with the non-Muslim powers and there is really no comparison in terms of scientific output, military, impact etc.

Your last point is highly simplistic. It's not like the non-Arab Muslim world is in any better shape rather the opposite aside from a few exceptions.

What is going on right now is a new age emerging. It will be a long and complicated debate but I have touched on this issue a few times before and many others have before me. Arabs as non-Arabs. Those changes concern the entire Muslim world and the remaining world as well.

But I firmly believe that it will get better once that stage is crossed.

 

[Halimi]

@asad71

If we are brutally honest then the downfall began when the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258. This had tremendous impact not only on the Arab world but the entire Muslim world and even the entire world at that time. The Golden Age of Islam ended there and from there on the Islamic world regressed. Compare all the later Muslim Empires, Sultanates, Emirates (Arab as well) with the non-Muslim powers and there is really no comparison in terms of scientific output, military, impact etc.

Your last point is highly simplistic. It's not like the non-Arab Muslim world is in any better shape rather the opposite aside from a few exceptions.

What is going on right now is a new age emerging. It will be a long and complicated debate but I have touched on this issue a few times before and many others have before me. Arabs as non-Arabs. Those changes concern the entire Muslim world and the remaining world as well.

But I firmly believe that it will get better once that stage is crossed.

You think the Ottomans can also be characterised as being uncompetitive with the non-Muslim powers, particularly in their first two centuries?

That conclusion would surprise me to be honest.

 

[al-Hasani]

You think the Ottomans can also be characterised as being uncompetitive with the non-Muslim powers, particularly in their first two centuries?

That conclusion would surprise me to be honest.

I am talking about overall power between the Muslim and non-Muslim world in particular Christian world. Not comparable to the French, Spanish or British Empire etc. If you compare it with the early Caliphates they were the main power not only of the region but the world for nearly 600 years. Militarily, economically, scientifically and in terms of size. After 1258 this changed forever.

In short the Islamic Golden Age died and Europe (and later USA) became the superpower of the world and this was evident until not long ago. It's first in recent years that China etc. have threatened the status quo.

 

[Aslan]

Let's face it. Western democracy is a alien ideology for the ancient ME.

It was that for Europe as well not until long ago. It takes a lot of time to implement properly.

U nailed it with that comment, and still the west dont get it. We had lived peacefully, and progressed very well till the same europeans who now want us to do what they thing is right, made a mess of things to begin with.

 

[asad71]

@asad71

If we are brutally honest then the downfall began when the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258. This had tremendous impact not only on the Arab world but the entire Muslim world and even the entire world at that time. The Golden Age of Islam ended there and from there on the Islamic world regressed. Compare all the later Muslim Empires, Sultanates, Emirates (Arab as well) with the non-Muslim powers and there is really no comparison in terms of scientific output, military, impact etc.

Your last point is highly simplistic. It's not like the non-Arab Muslim world is in any better shape rather the opposite aside from a few exceptions.

What is going on right now is a new age emerging. It will be a long and complicated debate but I have touched on this issue a few times before and many others have before me. Arabs as non-Arabs. Those changes concern the entire Muslim world and the remaining world as well.

But I firmly believe that it will get better once that stage is crossed.

1. Constantinople was conquered in 1453 ushering in another period of greatness in the history of the Muslims. Let us remember the Ottoman Caliphs considered themselves Caliphs of the Muslims. The official nationality, as appearing even in travel documents, of all peoples under the Ottoman Caliphs was "Muslim". I mention this because in the Arab world there are misgivings about Ottoman rule. There has never been a larger empire in history than that of the Ottomnas.
2. Eight centuries of Muslim rule over al-Andalusia ended in 1492 when Mohammad XII surrendered Grenada to the Christian king.
3. In Hindustan Muslims flourished till the death of Aurangjeb Alamgir, 1707. World has never seen a more magnificent dynasty than the Mughals.
4. Hulagu, the destroyer of Baghdad was hounded rest of his life by Genghis Khan's grandson Berke for this heinous act. Berke had accepted The Message. It was this tussle between the Hordes that in the end had prevented any Mongol plans of conquering Islam's holy lands. Moreover, many mongols now accepted Islam.