Thinkingman,
You asked an insightful question in a comment under the Shiite Reservoir is Marginalized: “Do we all want a modern state, or are we going to even clash over that basic definition?”
I thought it would be more expedient to answer you in an entry: A genuine modern state should look inwards, inwards to its people and leverage their energies and talents for a better future; this is what we have been missing. We’ve seen, and as Raja claimed, where modernity has led Arab countries in past decades.
What we’ve seen of political modernity was countries, like Egypt , that relied heavily on the West for either or a combination of food, aid, power, and justification, while oppressing local ideas and marginalizing groups. Moreover, you have countries, like Syria, that defame the notion of looking at the West and instead attempt to create their own secular, modern stand, but you still see absent the leveraging of all their citizens’ capabilities to move them forward.
Therefore, I understand why religiosity and Islamism have crept back into the Arab political discourse. Islamism has become an alternative and a reaction to what Arab leaders have defined as a modern state.
It is clear that a new order is replacing a dying one in our region. I would like to see genuine debate that revolves around what would constitute a modern Arab (or Lebanese, Egyptian, Iraqi, etc.) state in this new emerging order and the emergence of political parties and movements that rally around this new phase.
"Nobody knows how many rebellions, besides political rebellions, ferment in the masses of life which people earth."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
In the Middle East, there are two established power structures:
1. the family/clan structure: which takes on the garb of modernity or religiousity, depending on which is more politically desirable.
EG: Syria vs. Jordan; Egypt vs. Saudi Arabia; Morocco vs. Algeria; etc....
2. the second power structure is religion: the most effective counter elite to the ruling families are religious fundamentalists such as the Ikhwan, Hizballah, etc....
If you look at the political history of the Middle East since the first first caliphates, I don't think you will notice that much has changed since then.
I happen to disagree with both structures. But, the question I have yet to answer is whether they can be dismantled and replaced by more modern institutions.
"When Westerners wonder why Arabs have become repulsed by modernity as manifested by Western civilization, they should look at the Arab political elite. Most either subscribe to the Western paradigm, or are propped up by the United States or some other Western nation."
"What we’ve seen of political modernity was countries, like Egypt , that relied heavily on the West for either or a combination of food, aid, power, and justification, while oppressing local ideas and marginalizing groups."
Raja, have you ever considered that the paradigm you are seeing things through may NOT be the one that makes the most sense, incorporates the surest facts, and reveals the most truth?
anonymous,
please clarrify: I'm not sure how a paradigm incorporates facts and reveals truths.
there might be a disconnect between my first comment and Doha's post concerning the nature of a modern state, so I'm going to try to ammeliorate that problem.
My question is: can we have what is defined to be a "modern state" when the two most prominent political structures are the ones I listed above?
Let us not forget that power structures inherently seek power and wish to maintain it. Thus, if a modern state, or a prosperous economy somehow threatens those structures, you can be sure that they will intervene and obstruct!
For all of Jumblatt's "modern ways", he knows that his power rests on the extremely tight communal and familial bonds within the Druze community. You can be sure that he, his son and his grandchildren will resist any force that either directly or indirectly weakens those bonds. Whether that force is political or development/modernization really doesn't matter. Those developments, in there perspective, are nothing more than a threat to their power.
There are tons of parameters that define a socio-political order, in this case the Arab world.
When such an order fails (as is the case in the Arab world), social and economic scientist try to pinpoint what is at the core of the malfunction.
some would blame the Arab culture, Some would blame the US and Israel, some would blame Islam. But if i was to pinpoint what i think is THE most important thing to change for the Arab world to function better, i would say education:
when a people internalizes the culture of critical thinking, dialectical discourse and acceptance of the inevitability of change, societies will then be able to be their own engines of growth.
Some people would say that this is worthless if you don't have the resources to start such an education Marshal plan, so they approach the problem from an economic perspective, falsely assuming that more growth leads to more education.
can't have education without money, can't make money without education, it's a dialectic relationship ;)
Mustapha
The Beirut Spring
Mustapha,
there are two problems with your education marshal plan idea; and I'd like you to try to tackle them:
1. In Lebanon, the people are relatively educated - maybe not as educated as OECD countries, but definitely more educated than the majority of "Southern nations." The problem is that all the educated simply leave the country.
2. In AUB, I met some of the most brilliant computer scientists and engineers. Politically, however, I failed to be impressed! Let us not forget that Ayman al Zawahiri is a doctor, and Mohammed Atta was some sort of an engineer.
Post a Comment