Just as Orwell Said

        George Orwell said in his famous book 1984 that “first they steal the words, then they steal the meaning”, accurately foreseeing the political actions of world leaders and their manipulation of public opinion. His words are ever so precise once one examines the vocabulary applied by a number of world leaders when describing the policies and regimes of troubling countries: axis of evil, war on terror, terrorist killers, harbourers of fundamentalism etc. Ironic it is to see how those who were once described to have been allies with Satan himself seem to show good will in a matter of very few years. Iran is one very good example of this. The Persian nation has come out as a winner in the Geneva talks that were held in October, where not only did it get applauded for the concessions it offered, but it also ensured the west’s acceptance of its regional weight. Everyone seems to be more relaxed after the negotiations and a new round of talks has been set for November.

     Iran’s proposed plan offered to the P5+1 included two phases, both of which did not touch on its right to enrich uranium, but where open to concessions regarding quantity and levels of enrichment. Moreover, Iran also accepted to have its nuclear sites and facilities inspected by IAEA inspectors in any sudden visit, confirming with that that its nuclear goals are but peaceful. Its offer is being studied but has so far drawn applause and acceptance, at least from the media.  Catherine Ashton for her part described the diplomatic approach that Iran is treading as useful, Britain and France seem to be warming up to their Persian not-quite-the- adversary, and the Obama administration ignored both Israeli and gulf worries about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and political influence in the region and seems keen on going forward in talks with Iran and its new leader. The nuclear concessions offered by Iran will – if not already have – be met with political concessions from the US which are basically a given recognition of the role of Iran in all of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Palestine and the possibility of including Iran - rather than gulf countries - in the negotiating table with Syria. Whilst the western world refused at the beginning to include political issues in nuclear negotiations with Iran, they are now more inclined to embrace that only available option. The loyal and victimized allies in the Arab gulf now seem to be left out, and accommodating the villain of all villains seems to be the salvation.

     Political alliances and geopolitical considerations are meant to change over time according to countries’ interests and conditions. Should US interests and those of the EU lie in building bridges with Iran at the expense of Arab interests and Israeli fears, then this change of policy and approach would be perfectly fine. Nothing is engraved in stone. What is not fine however is the manipulation of public opinion with strong and blind convictions that give people every reason to fear an imaginary bogeyman. Depicting Iran as an evil nation with plans to annihilate Israel, destroy Arab states, enforce fundamental shiism, launch wars of terror on western nations and succumb the world to tyranny -quoting Bush Jr. – and then suddenly considering it as an option for a regional partner to restore peace in the Middle East (just like what happened in Iraq) and pacifying its nuclear ambitions, is not OK. Satan cannot repent and change course in a matter of 5 years’ time…unless of course he was not Satan from the very beginning…just a word stolen and altered to suit US interests at the time, just as Orwell said.

All You Need to Know Book

   

   

      At the ophthalmologist’s waiting room I was impatiently checking my watch, hoping it would strike 18:00 in defiance of the laws of nature controlling time passage. Masking my impatience with observing people’s attitudes at the grey large room, I was surprised to be actually entertained with an observation based on fellow patients. Men, women and children of different ages were resting comfortably on washed out green sofas, each defying time with his or her own entertaining gadget: a magazine, a book, a laptop, a phone and an interactive video game.  The only two (three if myself were included) exceptions to the case were the man sitting next to me and the man sitting two sofas ahead of me. Not accurately described as being old, the older men were about 65 -70 years old. Far from having a blank look in their eyes, these two men were staring into everything and nothing at the same time, their minds seemingly engaged with the elements present in the existing room whilst at the same time perhaps shifting into a virtual world of worries, ideas and chores. In all cases, what was on their mind exactly was of no interest to me, but what was – and consequently led to this article – was the fact of their “non-aided engagement” with their own thoughts.

      
     According to Michael Oakeshott, rationalism has been a growing trend since the 17^th century, being applied in all aspects of life (science, politics, religion etc.). Tradition, experience and facts accepted for face-value are all rejected by rationalists, where reason, and only reason, should be followed to reach conclusions about any given subject. Cleansing our minds from prejudices, we – rational learners – start a long journey of learning that requires acquiring two sets of types of knowledge:  technical and practical. In Oakeshott’s words, the process also involves “bringing all social, political, legal and institutional inheritance of our societies before the tribunal of our intellect”. He stresses the superiority of ideology over tradition, an ideology derived from a technique of thinking, investigating and interpreting….confirming that no knowledge is real knowledge unless it is technical knowledge, anything else is pure ignorance. As the philosopher Francis Bacon explained, all works of comprehension starts anew and take their own path, being guided in every step of the way…a comprehension that is an art of interpretation and investigation that complements the weakness of our natural reasoning. However, this rosy and logical picture painted by many philosophers and championed by Oakeshett seems to be spoiled by our modern ways. Oakeshott complains that this rationalist approach has been changing slowly, where we are moving further away from the true sources of inspiration and where the rationalist character has become more vulgar and rude…what used to be the art of thinking has become a manual of how to use your head at a fraction of habitual cost and what used to be the art of living has become the technique of success in life. Everything we need to know nowadays is written down eloquently and directly and we are spared the long dire process of thinking.

      Back to the waiting room, my observation was the following: nowadays, with the spread of books (paper and digital), vast variety of publications and communication tools we have turned into a “deluded information sponge”. We take everything- absolutely everything- in, with few questions asked.  We seem to be waiting for somebody else’s idea about a given topic, which would be taken for face value and stored at the back of our minds without any intention to doubt, question or analyse that thought. We are eager to know anything and congratulate ourselves for using the precious time – that could have been wasted - at the waiting room to flip through magazines and websites and take more info in….any info. What I am not sure about is how dangerous is that to our rational being? Are we really learning how to think? Are we clearing our heads of prejudices and receiving and storing others’ prejudices? Is Oakeshott right to complain that we misinterpreted rationalism and tend to convert the techniques of thinking, reasoning and reaching conclusions into a manual that is followed blindly?

     I am sure that some of us do. Most evident is that reality in politics, where the practicality of political engagement liberated many activists from the duty of political learning and the preference to acquire the magical politics technique that liberates the disadvantaged from political ignorance. His salvation can be found in an “all you need to know book” or a discourse that she can by heart and can apply directly and mechanically. How many journalists, bloggers (myself being one), reporters and programme presenters have brainwashed us and given us a false notion of being politically updated…themselves of course being brainwashed by others? How few are rational thinkers who can read an article published in a prestigious newspaper and written by someone with three titles preceding his name and rationally analyse it and value its essence? How impatient are we as readers and learners to take the fast track and get an honorary degree in knowledge? Are all of these patients – minus two – waiting at the ophthalmologist’s clinic members of the mpatient, passive and not-really-rational group? In all cases, it just struck me as a coincidence that such and observation was made while waiting for my eyes to be checked…although my argument may seem solid after this epiphany, I should stress that my arguments as based on 10 pages of Oakeshott’s book, read in 2 hours and written down in 1. So yes, I am a fellow member.

Nymphos vs. Jihadists*

     The news today read that the Polish experimentalist Ania Lisewska, who is on a mission to engage in sexual intercourse with one thousand men from around the world, was banned from entering Lebanon. She was also denied a visa to enter Jordan, Iraq, Tunisia and Yemen amongst other Arab countries. Despite the fact that the decision to ban her entry breaches every right and freedom that most of these countries repeatedly claim to protect, the irony of the decision within the current circumstances the Arab world is absolutely ridiculous.

  

    Hundreds of thousands of infiltrators have smuggled their way into Middle Eastern countries, whether to take part in the Godly war against imperialism and infidelity; whether to help fellow warriors by sending conjugal services performed by female mujaaheeden; or whether to assist fellow Arabs and believers by smuggling weapons, money and drugs and use such resources for extortion and black mailing. These border breaching phenomenon is not limited to the Arab world, as only last week did the Spanish authorities reveal the large number of expats living in Spain who left the European continent for good to fight the Syrian war. This is not to mention the thousands of mujahidden that infiltrated into Syria from Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. So the question remains: how did these fighters get in? Did they devise a new transportation strategy where they can disappear into thin area, cross borders in their transparent form, and then find themselves in these countries? Do they mask their true identity behind secular outfits and attitudes and arrive as rich tourists or concerned journalists? Have Arab countries and their border-control officials not yet honed their vigilance skills and are still unable to control and protect their frontiers? The Polish case proves otherwise though, with every border control official on high alert for this honour and chastity number one danger and the threats she poses on the general well-being of Arab citizens. What about Tunisian women who were sent to Syria to help “release some tension” from the mujahideen; did they pose no threat? Why did not anyone stop them from coming in?

    

     I say let her in. Let this investigator with a clear mission achieve her goal of sexual experimentation and result dissemination. We may benefit from what she has to share. After all, one is free to take on her offer or not and read her findings or not. Perhaps our ministries of interior and border control departments should focus instead on protecting their citizens from terrorists cells and proxy warriors who have so far brought nothing but division, destruction, instability, injustice, backwardness, hatred, loss of faith and every worldly excuse to label the Arab region as the center of all irrational behaviour. Let her instead...some sex won’t hurt.

*In every reference to jihaad or mujahideen, what is meant is the proxy warriors who mask their true interests, ideologies and objectives with slogans of religious affiliation and liberation of oppression. It is no way a reference to the true conviction of a small minority of religious duty.

The Syrian War

     The current civil war in Syria is in no doubt fuelled by many factors and has its roots dug deep in the history of the troubled region. The long established regime of Al Assad clan and the authoritarian iron grip of power has enjoyed less and less fans from national, regional and international stakeholders. Yes, stakeholders. One cannot deny that what happens at one's backyard will have an immediate effect on one's own home, especially given the state of globalization and interconnection of the world. A troubled Syria does cause problems for its immediate neighbours (mainly Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey) and its neighbours located further away such as Russia, and those located furthest away such as the USA and China. We are all connected, and we should therefore all be concerned. Going back to the reasons behind the conflict, some factors can be mentioned:

• Dire economic conditions suffered by the Syrian people as a result of the international financial crisis and accentuated by the sanctions placed on the country by the USA.
• The wave of democratization and revolution that spread across the Arab world, which motivated and empowered the Syrians to rise against their authorities.
• The growing impatience of the USA and Isreal over Syria's relations with a nuclear Iran, with a growing Hezbollah and popular Hamas.
• The Russian-American struggle over hegemony in the region.
• Pipeline politics, where Syria refused to sign an agreement in 2009 with Qatar that would run a pipeline from Qatar, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets as it would negatively effect Russia's supply of natural gas to Europe. The following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed by in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo.

These factors all came together beautifully 2 years ago when the uprising commenced in Syria. What started as a peaceful national movement demanding political change and reform, soon transformed into a trans-national crisis with international actors playing a part in the conflict each for their own interest. It is no longer a question of democratic reform, a chemical weapon abuse against civilians, a matter of human and civil rights: it is purely a mixture of economic interests and international political leadership calculations. It is no secret that the US, and some European allies such as Britain and France, have intended to destablize the country for the very same reasons mentioned above, and an excuse to intervene – the chemical gas red line – militarly is but another step taken towards reshaping the country's political make-up and molding the region's regimes according to the interests of economic and political leaders in the USA, Europe, Russia, China, Iran and the oil-rich gulf. To make matters worse, the slafist appeal to the younger Arab and Muslim generation, Al Qaeda's growth, the Shiite militia's excellent organisation under the tutelage of Iran and the christian-muslim, shiite-sunni division are also playing a role in deepening the crisis, and again, each acting to serve one's proper interests.

Bashar Al Assad has been the scapegoat, so was Sadam Hussein, and both were/are evil men who gave the world an excuse to turn a blind eye to the hypocrites, imperialism and double standards of the international community. The only victim in this power play is the Syrian people...especially when many got to the point where the choice between “the evil of the lesser evil” became a real and only choice.

Morlino's Lesson

   

         Long has it been established that history repeats itself, and that countries tend to tread the same path chosen by nations before (whether for their own good or destruction). The European experience throughout the past centuries, supported by the countless studies that have been conducted to investigate Europe's history and political development, are of utmost importance to understand the current crisis through which some Arab states are passing. Examining the current state of affairs in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt reveals extreme tension on all levels as well as the need to disseminate political and intellectual consciousness so as to prevent the transformation of this current crisis into a state of constant and permanent instability. In this context, Leonardo Morlino's reference in his book “Democracies and Democratization”, published in 2009, in which he referred to the phases of transformation from democratic regimes to authoritarian regimes (citing the German experience in the 1930s in particular) sheds a light on the transformations happening in Arab regimes. Should the theoretical aspect of Morlino's transformation steps be compared with the current Egyptian scenario, where the democratically elected government was out thrown and a new interim government took control, then the “history repeats itself” notion would be proven fatefully accurate. 

    The crisis in democratic regimes begins, according to Morlino, with the emergence of a state of political competition between parties, political elites and social activists, followed by an increase in polarization, divisions and fragmentation, whether in the party, in political participation or in the standing government. Polarization in this sense means the deviation in political positions between parties and elites on either pole, whilst radicalization follows polarization and involves a growing distance between these polar forces, either in the parliament or in the street. Amidst such radicalization, division and instability, the government finds itself drawing inefficient policies, leading to the general perception of the regime's illegitimacy and a deepening of political conflict. In this phase, should the rival political elite reach a compromise/ agreement, then the crisis could be overcome; otherwise, the crisis would move to the next phase that leads to the fall of the regime, increase in violence and the politicization of the neutral powers, deeming any agreement or compromise impossible. 

      A transitory phase follows, described as involving two opposing political coalitions as the regime is being gradually transformed from a democratic regime to an authoritarian regime. The new regime would then transform and alter the standing structures and norms as it sees fit. The differences between the old and new regimes are wider when there is a state of chaos and violence which assist in the appearance of new leaders with reactionary policies against the old regime, noting that the new regime would be institutionalized much easier and faster if elements in the older regime – such as the army – were an accomplice in overthrowing the government. This new regime would do all that is possible to protect itself, its guardians and its economic and political interests, confiscating at the same time all coercive powers. Gradually, this new authoritarian regime will establish itself in all domains of public life, and its removal would not be an easy task.

     The point behind Morlino's study is two folded: for one part, it is a reminder of how easy a regime can be transformed from a democratic model to an authoritarian one. The Weimar Republic's experience, albeit short standing, serves as an excellent example. On the other hand, it reveals how necessary it is to spread political culture amongst citizens, who are both the protagonists and victims of political rivalries and national, regional and international forces. For us, as activists and concerned citizens, we must learn that every demonstration, every act of violence and every blind acceptance of the decisions and actions that undermine the essence of democracy -no matter how appealing they may seem or how convenient they are to our political orientations – would have dire consequences. And yes, history proved so.

Parties' Reinvention

Political parties in Western Europe have been developing throughout the past two centuries, reinventing themselves and reorganizing their structures to reflect socio-economic changes in their societies. Elitist parties that dominated European politics had to expand their support-base and include members from other social classes following the introduction of universal suffrage. The expanded parties – known as mass parties – were actively recruiting members and gaining supporters at the beginning of the 20^th century, adhering strictly at the same time to their ideological agendas and party doctrines. With the organizational modernization of contemporary politics following the Second World War and the birth of pressure groups and strong political bureaucracies, in addition to the expansion of public participation, technological advances and intense competition between parties and political opponents, mass parties transformed themselves to catch-all parties. These parties intended to appeal to a larger sect of the society and electorate, therefore modifying their agendas, focusing on specific issues at hand, softening their ideological approach and working on galvanizing support from different political cleavages. Finally, in the 21^st century, political parties took the form of cartel or catch-all-plus parties, acting as professional agencies and networks of political agents, dominating public institutions, which, rather than competing in order to win support from wherever it can be found, are content to ensure their access to the state by sharing power with others.

Examining the European experience against the Arab experience has been a rejected notion, considering the vast differences between the history, society, economy, culture and ideological orientations between Arab and European countries. What is however meant from the exposition of party development is highlighting the importance of western parties' adaptation to changes and developments occurring in their societies. A 21^st century party cannot follow the same line of actions, calls, aspirations and strategies applied 50 years ago. European and western communities and their political leaders customized their party systems, organization and structures to accommodate such changes and alterations in the general political culture.

Parties in the Arab world on the other hand have followed a different route and have passed through different periods that restricted their performance and - sometimes – their continuance and existence. Nonetheless, the Arab Spring served as an opportunity for party reorganization and reinvention, with the Arab populace eager to re-engage in political participation via elections and party affiliation. Parties, in this sense, must act as change-motors and adapt themselves to the new realities on the ground. Employing decades-old mentalities and reminiscing about past glories and political achievements is a romantic disconnection from reality that would lead to further social and political disorientation. Egypt's current political and social turmoil may be an excellent example of weak party development occurring in many Arab states. The country's social confusion may be attributed to the disconnection between parties and political elites on one side, and the public on the other. The polarization between public opinion (with right-left and confessional-secular cleavages) and the political organization (both parties and political establishments) have led to general chaos on Egyptian streets. This unfortunate reality is being fed by further regional and international intervention, leaving the Egyptian public to feel like a victim of a western-designed conspiracy or theological authoritarian ambitions. Millions have taken to the street to protest against an Islamic government, and millions have also taken to the street to protest its ousting. Millions are supporting democratically elected governments, and millions are supporting the preservation of security and freedom even if democracy were to be compromised. Finger pointing and exchange of accusations are common, and many – lamentably – seem to favour bullets to ballots. Both sides view state organization differently, and parties and establishments (military in particular) hold an entirely different view. This lack of a minimum consensus has a series of reasons and justifications behind it, but failing to address this issue is in itself a contributing factor to the growing schism between citizens, government and parties.

In the end, democracy has always needed parties to defend it and preserve it, acting as its loyal gatekeeper. Most importantly parties have always been the product of the societies from which they emerged. Unless parties learn how to reorganize, reinvent themselves, modify their approach, soften their ideological ideals, accommodate different orientations and interests of their societies with all its colours, and spread political education and culture, only two options would be available for the Egyptian (and other) political systems: democratic chaos or authoritarian stability.

Nationality and Arabs

   Nationality, patriotism, panarabism, regionalism....terms designed to define individuals residing certain geographic areas and thier feelings towards their patria. Long have I – as an Arab – heard the praise of Arab glories...the readiness to die for this stretch of land, ideals and history...the supremacy of the nation's historic and heroic figures and the injustice the imperialist world has served it in our modern days. Examining the history of Arabs, the problems emerge from the very beginning of this quest. Who are Arabs? Are they defined by their language? History? Religion? Culture? Does a Yemeni beduin have much in common with a Morrocan citizen? Is the arguement of some Lebanese intellectuals of pertaining to a generic meditteranean race of phonecian history rather than the Arab race accurate? Are caucasian residents in Jordan, Syria and Palestine considered Arabs? What about Kurds? They speak Arabic afterall, and are Muslims and Christians – the two main faiths in the Arab world. 

     Considering the history of Arab countries, basically after the birth of Islam in the 7th century and the rise and fall of Islamic Empires that stretched throughout history and geography, culminating in the Ottoman Empire, it is evident that the notion of statehood was one mixed of nationhood : a community of citizens identifying themselves as muslims, and not as citizens of certain regions. This identification with religion did not rule out the sense of “belonging” to a certain region, but the Asabiye – the prejudice and blinded identification with a closed group of  people (whether a clan, tribe or family) and the segmentation of societies based on race was prohibited – at least in theory. The Ottomans clearly did not respect this heritage, and the racist policies practiced by the Osmalis, coupled with the spread of nationalist sentiments in the XVIII and XIX centuries led to “Arab Nationalism or Panarabism”. The dismantling of the Empire and the division of Arab lands between colonial powers accentuated the identification of citizens with their bordered lands, and gradually – with the liquidation of nationalist parties and activists – the borders of these countries deepened and nationality laws started being promulgated. When a 15th century Arab identified himself as pertaining to a Muslim nation irrespective of the race/ethnicity of the ruling class, a 20th century Arab strongly identifies with the fellow citizens within the land space occupied by a given regime. The term “Arab” has therefore been blurred: if there is no actual Arab nation, and individuals are to be content with their identification as citizens of sub-nation states, then no Arab can logically and truthfully say that he or she is an Arab. History, language, culture and religion may be binding, but the diverse makeup of modern societies these days, thier orientation, cultural beliefs, norms and even linguistic expression have all loosened the once tightly sealed definition of Arabism. The state, with its rule, regulations, political system and the passport color shape who you are, and what you are entitled to. 

  This lengthy introduction is meant to address the issue of the Bahraini government's recent threat of withdrawing nationalities from Bahrani opposition activists. Apart from the fact that the right of nationality is a fundamental right granted by article 15 of the World Declaration of Human Rights, how can a government decide to use the “natural right of belonging” against any citizen who dares to cross it? How can a nationality become so awfully cheap and easily played with by officials when convinient? How can one's entire existence, self identification and pertinence be subject to arbitrary decisions? How can an entire nation be toyed with throughout history...leaving elites and imperlialists deciding on how one should feel and identify himself/herself? When were Arabs given a chance to decide on who they want to be and how they want to label themselves?

   

     The authoritarian regime in Bahrain is no stranger than that in many Arab countries, and the decision to withdraw nationalities is also not an innovative Al Khalifa coercion formula. Nonetheless, the fact that it is being used in the 21st century, third year into the Arab Spring, and amongst heated debated and studies on “what went wrong with democracy and human rights in the Arab world” is a shame. Moreover, this coercive instrument is being used whilst the slogans mentioned at the very beginning of the article are also employed passionately by the very same regimes...and that, dear readers, is simply a nifty disgrace.