Arab Hope, Arab Change

KUWAIT CITY -- The stark juxtapositions within the Arab World -- and the wider Middle East-South Asia region -- were brought home to me one morning this week in Kuwait. I am here participating in a global gathering that seeks to increase the production of indigenous research in the Middle East in order to better influence policy-making. But our noble endeavor contrasted sharply with the morning newspaper headlines of suicide bombings in Somalia and Afghanistan, continued military strikes in Israel and Palestine, and even the provincial elections in Iraq, happening during a lull between a string of suicide bombings in that country.

Where, in this range of events, is the center of gravity of the Arab world? It is in none and all of these things simultaneously. For the Arab World is defined by both rampant violence -- home-grown and foreign-instigated -- and a deep desire to become democratic, productive, vibrant societies, intellectually and culturally. 

A key to moving in that direction is understanding the main constraint and the common denominator in all these events. I believe it is the legacy of autocratic, top-heavy, centralized Arab governments, which range from relatively gentle monarchies on the one hand to hard police states on the other.

The modern Arab security state took hold for good in the early 1970s, and has been challenged in only two ways: by foreign armies such as overthrew the Iraqi Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein, and by slow disintegration or domestic challenge from within, in places like Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and Yemen. 

No Arab country has had the luxury of evolving normally and slowly into a modern, balanced nation-state that defines itself and controls its own resources.

The legacy of security-dominated states where power is concentrated in the hands of a family or small group of soldiers has led to two extremes: an almost total lack of indigenous production of cultural capital and intellectual knowledge (with very few exceptions, mostly in Beirut and Cairo), and widespread use of violence and terror by opposition forces trying to overthrow the incumbents.

The issue being addressed at this gathering of the Global Development Network, in Kuwait, clarifies a root problem of this sustained Arab autocracy. The production of knowledge and research that can influence policy-making is defined by deep tensions in the Arab World, because there are two concepts that violently contradict: Those who hold power for decades on end do not have an interest in prodding the sort of free intellectual enquiry and scientific research that are at the heart of knowledge production.

A telltale sign of the problem is that all the institutions of knowledge production -- universities, research centers, media -- must be approved and licensed by the government. Most Arab governments do not want too many nimble minds openly enquiring into how society operates and power is exercised. This is why most of the best Arab journalists and researchers live abroad.

Where there has been a positive move forward, such as in some Arab satellite channels that openly debate important public issues, the problem remains that providing citizens with more information and a variety of views does not impact on the political process. Better informed citizens do not become more politically empowered citizens.

The lack of real politics is reflected in the absence of peaceful contestation of power and equally peaceful and regular transitions from one government to the next. When some Arab governments do change, policies do not. Because policy is set by a higher authority than the formal cabinet of ministers. 

The change of policy that normally accompanies a change of government is on show quite brilliantly these days in the United States, as many men and women move into high government office from positions in universities, think tanks and research centers. No such thing happens in Arab countries, because independent research institutions and think tanks remain very few in number, and limited in their resources and impact. 

This situation can only change by homegrown evolution into more democratic, pluralistic governance systems, working with likeminded partners around the world. Foreign armies cannot do the job for us. Iraq's transformation remains a fascinating ongoing process whose ultimate outcome remains to be seen. It was probably a one-time phenomenon that reflected a unique post-9/11 moment in America that will not be repeated -- and should not be repeated, in my view.

For now, the cross-fertilization between politics and the world of ideas remains weak in the Arab world, which is one reason why our region counts more indigenous terrorists and exiled intellectuals than it does respected resident researchers and public policy analysts. 

The fact that so many Arabs and their friends abroad insist on reversing this picture is a reason to remain hopeful, and to keep working hard for change -- while rejecting the ways of the three demons that continue to plague us: incumbent security state autocrats, local terrorists, and foreign armies.

Rami G. Khouri is Editor-at-large of The Daily Star, and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon.