I came across this Op-Ed, which I had written for the Daily Star in May of 2003, and which was co-published with Al Jazeera (The Internet source can be found here). Here is a transcript:
Pacing Change or Changing Pace
Wissam S. Yafi
May 26, 2003
As Arab regimes begin to feel the heat from masses wanting change as well as the international community tired of popular repression whip-lashing in their own backyards an interesting theme that has come to the fore is the pace in which change should occur change meaning reform. While one typically finds that regimes in the Arab world do not always agree with change; if and when they finally get around to it, they resort to the paternalistic argument of it needing to be done at a slow pace so as not to negatively affect the dynamics of the region. Anything rash, they warn, would yield “undesired results” pointing to revolutionary Iran, Algeria’s civil war, Afghanistan’s Taleban, and the Islamic militants supposedly waiting in the shadows in Palestine, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia.
But if one thinks about it, will the problems be solved by pacing change or rather by changing pace? Is our region’s predicament due to the speed of reforms that have been introduced, or is it due to slow or never-seriously-introduced-in-the-first-place reforms? Since the Arab world itself does not offer much experience on reform, one needs to look to other places. Unfortunately, history does not seem to be consistent with respect to the pace of reform. Sometimes a quick split with the past has yielded reasonably good results, as was the case with the 18th century American revolution, the 19th century Japanese Meiji Restoration, and the 20th century end of the Soviet Union. Sometimes slow change has also worked, such as the case of modern China and, to a certain degree, Chile and Spain.
Closer to home, ironically, many of the regimes now calling for slow change themselves came to power through very quick and revolutionary upheaval. Indeed, Arab history reached its zenith on the heels of a blitzkrieg conquest seldom seen before or since. So, where exactly does this notion of the requirement for so slow a pace of change in the Arab world come from particularly when economic and socio political theories do not give clear guidance? Could it be self-interest? Is it not evident that self-interest exists with anyone who has been in power for decades or has benefited from it to call for unhurried change.
Then again, could it not be genuine fear? Autocratic Arab regimes may have much to fear for their murky past and their opaque policies. Would those who are socio-economically distraught react violently, would families of abducted loved ones take revenge, or would religious zealots take over? While all these fears may be legitimate, an equally legitimate question is why the ruling regimes have not able to circumvent them. Surely, “insufficient time” could not have been a factor, as most of these regimes have been in power for decades.
While Rome was not built in a day, much less-endowed contemporary and yet equally complex societies (such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore) all reformed and as a result have become much freer. What is it that Arab regimes can do going forward? For one, they can continue to do nothing. Regimes have been in power for decades. But they would do this at their own peril as Saddam Hussein saw first hand, and as the Saudis and Palestinians are seeing now with all the turmoil around them.
The third option is to genuinely speed up political, economic, social and educational reform. Risky? Of course it is, but not more than the risks of doing nothing or pacing reform at a snail’s pace.
At a time when the region is going through some tough times, it can yet count its blessings for the resource endowment that God has bequeathed it. However, it must also use it for the benefit of improving the well-being of the people.
Ceding more power to the people should take center stage. What the region needs most now is a fraternal changing of the pace of reform as opposed to a paternal pacing of change. This should not be done by feeding them, but by trusting them and making them responsible for their own decisions and lives.A second option is for them to simply pack up and leave a risky proposition, and perhaps not the optimal one, as economic strife and religious fervor could lead to regional anarchy.
Pacing Change or Changing Pace
Wissam S. Yafi
May 26, 2003
As Arab regimes begin to feel the heat from masses wanting change as well as the international community tired of popular repression whip-lashing in their own backyards an interesting theme that has come to the fore is the pace in which change should occur change meaning reform. While one typically finds that regimes in the Arab world do not always agree with change; if and when they finally get around to it, they resort to the paternalistic argument of it needing to be done at a slow pace so as not to negatively affect the dynamics of the region. Anything rash, they warn, would yield “undesired results” pointing to revolutionary Iran, Algeria’s civil war, Afghanistan’s Taleban, and the Islamic militants supposedly waiting in the shadows in Palestine, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia.
But if one thinks about it, will the problems be solved by pacing change or rather by changing pace? Is our region’s predicament due to the speed of reforms that have been introduced, or is it due to slow or never-seriously-introduced-in-the-first-place reforms? Since the Arab world itself does not offer much experience on reform, one needs to look to other places. Unfortunately, history does not seem to be consistent with respect to the pace of reform. Sometimes a quick split with the past has yielded reasonably good results, as was the case with the 18th century American revolution, the 19th century Japanese Meiji Restoration, and the 20th century end of the Soviet Union. Sometimes slow change has also worked, such as the case of modern China and, to a certain degree, Chile and Spain.
Closer to home, ironically, many of the regimes now calling for slow change themselves came to power through very quick and revolutionary upheaval. Indeed, Arab history reached its zenith on the heels of a blitzkrieg conquest seldom seen before or since. So, where exactly does this notion of the requirement for so slow a pace of change in the Arab world come from particularly when economic and socio political theories do not give clear guidance? Could it be self-interest? Is it not evident that self-interest exists with anyone who has been in power for decades or has benefited from it to call for unhurried change.
Then again, could it not be genuine fear? Autocratic Arab regimes may have much to fear for their murky past and their opaque policies. Would those who are socio-economically distraught react violently, would families of abducted loved ones take revenge, or would religious zealots take over? While all these fears may be legitimate, an equally legitimate question is why the ruling regimes have not able to circumvent them. Surely, “insufficient time” could not have been a factor, as most of these regimes have been in power for decades.
While Rome was not built in a day, much less-endowed contemporary and yet equally complex societies (such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore) all reformed and as a result have become much freer. What is it that Arab regimes can do going forward? For one, they can continue to do nothing. Regimes have been in power for decades. But they would do this at their own peril as Saddam Hussein saw first hand, and as the Saudis and Palestinians are seeing now with all the turmoil around them.
The third option is to genuinely speed up political, economic, social and educational reform. Risky? Of course it is, but not more than the risks of doing nothing or pacing reform at a snail’s pace.
At a time when the region is going through some tough times, it can yet count its blessings for the resource endowment that God has bequeathed it. However, it must also use it for the benefit of improving the well-being of the people.
Ceding more power to the people should take center stage. What the region needs most now is a fraternal changing of the pace of reform as opposed to a paternal pacing of change. This should not be done by feeding them, but by trusting them and making them responsible for their own decisions and lives.A second option is for them to simply pack up and leave a risky proposition, and perhaps not the optimal one, as economic strife and religious fervor could lead to regional anarchy.
No comments:
Post a Comment