It's being set aside every time people talk about it, and has been a source of debate for quite a while right now, considering the many viewpoints arising from the situation on the Arab world. The issue I speak of is reform, and this is just a base of the Egyptian issue that I talked about yesterday. It's a pressing issue, and has been called for by both Arabs and Westerners alike; however, both call for forms of reform which differ drastically in many aspects, especially on how to carry out reform at its core. The disagreement, as put by Al Jazeera, is on the question of how to reform Arab political, social and economical infrastructure, which itself will prove a difficult task.
Let's consider the Western initiative to reform. Most Westerners advocate that interventionism is the answer, meaning that the U.S., the U.K., and the E.U. should draft reform planning and implement it by force with almost no other alternatives. Although there are other "moderate" alternatives, as proposed by Danielle Pletka, one should take such plans with a grain of salt: interfering in MidEastern political affairs, internal and external, could prove dangerous: we have seen the financial support for dictators like Mubarak and the recently-arrested Charles Taylor of Liberia. Such support has proved negative and in fact hindering against reform, as support for antiquated programs and policies that have produced corruption amongst the government has proved thus inefficient and counterproductive. Moreover, we are talking about intervention, which goes strictly against the principles of non-aggression and thus produces unnecessary shifts in power and representation with regards to the people and the supposed puppet government produced out of such intervention. On the bright side, there have been attempts by Europe to positively instigate economical reform in Mediterranean Arab countries like Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria. According to Roland Danreuther, the Barcelona Process initiative, which was conceived after the farcical Oslo accords, suggested this method of reform through passive intervention. There are also countries like Tunisia which benefit from EU assisstance; however, such dependence on cash flow from outside sources might hamper progress of Tunisia's economical infrastructure, given the possibility of such funds being pulled from Tunisia's budget.
However, there has been overall more opposition to interventionist reform plans than support for them from the MidEastern street. Such reform plans are most likely a way to re-establish the Arab political system and balance of power in order to favor more neoconservative policies and subservience to U.S. imperialism. One of the most vocal critic of such reform initiatives is Dr. Sami Zebian, editor-in-chief of Al-Hawadeth Weekly magazine. The biggest assertion that he makes is that the U.S. is acting for the sake of its own interests; what country in its place wouldn't, though? However, Zebian hits the mark when he clarifies that America's interests in its reform initiative for the MidEast is based on political goals that might not bode well for people and governments of the MidEast alike. Moreover, he finds it hypocritical that the U.S. propose such an initiative now, given the current "political climate" and the illegal occupation of Iraq; this, of course, is understandable. The initiative also seeks to destroy Arab and Muslim unity, which is, in its case, making sure that Pan-Arab nationalism doesn't resurface. I agree with this only to a certain extent: I am an ardent opponent of nationalism, but I'm all for unity, Arab and Muslim in retrospect. We have already seen the Shah regime instigate Western values, supposedly "revered above all", into the Iranian populace, which willingly refused it and stuck to Islamic values (Shi'ite, really). Malaysia is one of the most successful Muslim countries, economically and politically. But to keep nations homogeneous culturally, which is what the U.S. and other Western powers have been doing since colonial times, is dangerous. Why?
So, what must be done, then? Technically, we can't let interventionism get in the way of Arab political reform. Sadly, there are many advocates who claim that interventionism is the only solution because, according to such people, the Arab world will never change itself. Such a statement is racist, and backward as the statement "a tiger will never change its stripes"; that's of course assuming that Arabs are just animals and the only way to make them "human" is to become more "civilized" (i.e. Westernized). Putting such (politically) incorrect bullcrap aside, we can see that there have been several strides in reform in the MidEast. For example, there has been the recent elections in Qatar and also in Kuwait, with the recent introduction of female candidates in the latter run (sadly, no women won, but hey, this is a step, right?). Such reform initiatives waned, though, in places like Saudi Arabia, especially when the nation's populace fell to security crackdowns in response to attacks from within the nation. Political activism is still a problem in many areas as well, as political parties in certain nations have been banned from running. Free expression is limited, and religious values in society are being viewed in flux. With regards to the economy, a handful of nations in the Arab world suffer from corruption within the government, in the form of keeping cash from the public and downplaying salaries, etc. Furthermore, monetary systems in many MidEast countries are selective: it is more like survival of the fittest, with the richer upper class coming out on top at the expense of those below them. Poverty is another problem that needs to be addressed: even though it is a global problem, it doesn't make it someone else's problem (refer to above paragraph about interventionism). Socially, education and healthcare need to be addressed as well, making it necessary for people to see that such systems are reformed in order to better serve the people and provide for the next generations. Another problem unsung of is the influence from outside on our people and how it has swayed the public to stray away from Islamic and Arab values that are necessary to our survival; I'm not saying that it's a bad thing, but Arab culture and Islam must survive as well. Seriously, we can see that the road to reform is not going to be an easy one.
Speaking of Islam, it is also a subject of debate on whether to reform it or not. It is often argued that there must be a "Martin Luther" of some sort so he may "reform" Islam. Consider first that Islam does not have a body like the Catholic Church and is made up of many sects (according to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), he once said that Islam will be split into 73 sects). Furthermore, if you take a look at Islamic demographics worldwide, you will notice that most Muslims are concentrated in East Asia, but are otherwise dispersed throughout, therefore nullifying the concept of Islamic unity. I also posted in May that Islam itself is in no need for reformation because of how it is perverted and radicalized, but what needs to be reformed is how it is taught. For example, there should be less emphasis on radical aspects and more emphasis on the basic tenets and how to deal with them in life. Another thing that needs to be changed is not to root out extremist sheikhs, but to drown them out with the voices of more moderate Muslims, opposed to terrorism and U.S. imperialism alike.
According to Islam itself, reform is a must: it is a God-given duty for Muslims to rise against oppression and injustice, promote virtue and good policies, and root out vice and corrupt policies alike. A prominent Islamic voice against corruption has been Sheikh Yusuf Al Qardawi. He claims, for example, that economic corruption is one of the most important issues that are Islamically addressed, along with the issue of political balance of power. Many other issues that need reform come into focus, such as the prevention of moral corruption through the invasion of Western culture, the prevention of environmental corruption in the form of pollution and other human actions that plague the Earth, and many other issues like education, science, medicine and other social aspects. Like myself, he is opposed to interventionism and against corruption within the Arab political elite, and stresses the importance of gradualism during the developmental and reform processes, which is contrary to the abrupt changes that the U.S. plans to implement. Above all, Islam seeks to reform the nations so that they may become independent and more functional.
So, where must the change come from? As Amr Musa said (repeating an adage),
To address political reform, we need to gradually abolish the authoritarian regimes that rule over us and place instead centrist regimes based on both religious and secular principles, taking the best from the two and discarding what might offend minorities within the Arab world. While we have seen what sectarian divisions and governments bring unto themselves in Iraq (more chaos), one must put in mind that Arab political parties should bring no mention of sects, but of political ideologies. Egypt, though still rife with corruption, is the closest example of this aspect. Furthermore, capital punishment should go with the policies as dictated by Islam: unless the criminal repents for his/her actions, the punishment has to be applied. Regarding the judicial system, fair trials have to be implemented, and witnesses should be taken into consideration. A representative per district per city has to be elected to represent the people of the said district in parliament, and efforts should be made to suit laws for the people, not the government. If laws become inefficient, they should be renewed. Moreover, care should be taken that the balance of power is preserved, and that leaders don't have their butts stuck to the throne for at most five years. Also, considering the different political climates in each country, one must apply democracy gradually to each country with the people of the said country making the changes for themselves. In addition to all this, the public must play a part in actively getting to know their rights and keeping the government in check, not the other way around.
With regards to the economy, I'm not an expert at this. All I can say is that the Arab countries should work to keep free trade up while trying to decrease dependence on aid. Moreover, subsidization should decrease, as this is a source of corruption in many Arab countries, especially those in the Gulf States. Governmental projects should be made to discover resources, exploit them, and, if necessary, nationalize them for the benefit of reform until the necessary goals are achieved. Free trade can be encouraged for the benefit of the Arab populace, and effects of globalization that might have effects on the society should be watched over. The Arab Business Council already stated their plans for economic reform in the MidEast. They include:
Now, on to social reform. Privatization of health care is a vital step, as this removes the load from the government and enables it to implement political and economical reform without regard to social issues. Furthermore, the judicial system, with respect to social issues, should be re-evaluated: freedom of expression should be implemented, and public education by privatized institutions should be implemented in case of Islamic countries and reserved societies (for example, smoking, drinking, etc.). Gun control should be modernized, as increasing gun control might lead to crimes, according to this AEI report. With regards to education, the system should incoroporate both Arab and Western elements (the best of two worlds), and reforming Arab education with recent scientific findings, curricula, etc., and make Arab education world-class, as it was during the times of the Islamic Caliphates. The issue of abortion should be taken seriously, though, from my standpoint. Returning to freedom, freedom should be given, but education on sensible freedom, which is simply freedom with order, should be encouraged. The public, furthermore, should be made politically aware and more open to differing viewpoints. While the Arab schools of thought (in all areas) differ widely in their opinions on worldly matters, it can still be improved. University education should also be a focus, and accreditation is a must for all schools professing foreign curricula. Religion is another aspect sacred to Eastern society, as Eastern societies have historically drifted towards religion more than secularism. Religious freedom should be encouraged, and, with the privatization of construction firms, etc., so should freedom of worshipping in wherever you want; that is, mosques, churches and synagogues, etc., should be treated equally. The workforce should also be given freedoms, and the right to strike when the situation demands it. In addition to all this, the public should be made aware of what their rights are and how they can make their voice heard in the parliament. Security is a concern in this troubled region of the world, but a security force should be made so that they don't endanger the liberties of the people (i.e. no inhibitions whatsoever on press freedom). The armies should also be able to rebuild themselves, while abiding by international law. In this way, reform is gradually implemented and brought successfully into the Arab world, as people should become accustomed to each reform procedure, one step at a time.
Well, there's a lot to this topic, but that's all my guts can spill. I leave you with a link to the Arab Reform Forum and a link to the Arab Reform Initiative, in case you are interested in more details. Reform and progress are necessary steps in political progression, as progressiveness roots out all conservative evils and bad policies, while implementing what's best for the people, not serving the selfish interests of the government and its politicians who supposedly represent their people. In the long run, reform will be tough, but it will be possible. And hopefully, we will be able to root out the darkness, and bring out the light. Perhaps, the Arabs will rid themselves from Western intervention and instead stay on a course of free trade, with the establishment of a Palestinian state and full recognition of Arab sovereignity. I pray that we enter a new age of honor, glory and light, out of this age of corruption, betrayal and greed, and that we as Arabs become fully independent and show the world that we are capable of being leaders of tomorrow and beacons of hope for those who seek it, and preserve Islam, bringing it out of the murky depths of Islamophobia and perversion. Finally, I'd like to stress that change must come from within. It won't be an easy path, but in the long run, I'm sure we can make it.
Salaam, from
Saracen
Let's consider the Western initiative to reform. Most Westerners advocate that interventionism is the answer, meaning that the U.S., the U.K., and the E.U. should draft reform planning and implement it by force with almost no other alternatives. Although there are other "moderate" alternatives, as proposed by Danielle Pletka, one should take such plans with a grain of salt: interfering in MidEastern political affairs, internal and external, could prove dangerous: we have seen the financial support for dictators like Mubarak and the recently-arrested Charles Taylor of Liberia. Such support has proved negative and in fact hindering against reform, as support for antiquated programs and policies that have produced corruption amongst the government has proved thus inefficient and counterproductive. Moreover, we are talking about intervention, which goes strictly against the principles of non-aggression and thus produces unnecessary shifts in power and representation with regards to the people and the supposed puppet government produced out of such intervention. On the bright side, there have been attempts by Europe to positively instigate economical reform in Mediterranean Arab countries like Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria. According to Roland Danreuther, the Barcelona Process initiative, which was conceived after the farcical Oslo accords, suggested this method of reform through passive intervention. There are also countries like Tunisia which benefit from EU assisstance; however, such dependence on cash flow from outside sources might hamper progress of Tunisia's economical infrastructure, given the possibility of such funds being pulled from Tunisia's budget.
However, there has been overall more opposition to interventionist reform plans than support for them from the MidEastern street. Such reform plans are most likely a way to re-establish the Arab political system and balance of power in order to favor more neoconservative policies and subservience to U.S. imperialism. One of the most vocal critic of such reform initiatives is Dr. Sami Zebian, editor-in-chief of Al-Hawadeth Weekly magazine. The biggest assertion that he makes is that the U.S. is acting for the sake of its own interests; what country in its place wouldn't, though? However, Zebian hits the mark when he clarifies that America's interests in its reform initiative for the MidEast is based on political goals that might not bode well for people and governments of the MidEast alike. Moreover, he finds it hypocritical that the U.S. propose such an initiative now, given the current "political climate" and the illegal occupation of Iraq; this, of course, is understandable. The initiative also seeks to destroy Arab and Muslim unity, which is, in its case, making sure that Pan-Arab nationalism doesn't resurface. I agree with this only to a certain extent: I am an ardent opponent of nationalism, but I'm all for unity, Arab and Muslim in retrospect. We have already seen the Shah regime instigate Western values, supposedly "revered above all", into the Iranian populace, which willingly refused it and stuck to Islamic values (Shi'ite, really). Malaysia is one of the most successful Muslim countries, economically and politically. But to keep nations homogeneous culturally, which is what the U.S. and other Western powers have been doing since colonial times, is dangerous. Why?
One disturbing feature of the initiative is the concept of "no boundaries" between societies, therefore disregarding any human or social structure of such societies.Dr. Zebian's statement struck me as politically correct, rather than parentally savvy talk regarding the way neoconservative politicians deal with the Middle East by radically painting all Arabs and their nations with the same paint brush. However, he speaks the obvious: each Arab nation is accustomed to its own traditions, culture, society, climate, etc. Therefore, treating them all the same way will elicit different responses, mostly negative because each nation would adversely respond to sudden change. On the other hand, I find it hypocritical that many rightwingers claim that Muslims living in Europe and the U.S. try to instill their values on others while they press for sudden reform and instillment of Western political and social ideals on the MidEastern people. This is nothing new in the blind-to-accountability extreme right. Returning to the topic of discussion, we can also see the risks such interventionism produces. The first comes from the "financial drain" (the depletion of the reserves of the nations involved) that would affect the countries struggling during the reform process. The second, and foremost, comes from the problem of exploiting tribal and sectarian divisions to achieve political gains, which is easily what imperialist powers have been doing since colonial times. Therefore, if interventionism is to be successful in providing reforms, one must seek a plan compatible for all groups, but interventionism at its best might favor one group over another with terms to certain resources, etc. Thus, one can conclude that interventionism is not a viable solution.
Such a concept is very dangerous. The level of freedom and rights varies from one Arab and/or Muslim country to another depending on the relationship and amount of communication between it and western culture. In addition, political circumstances could hinder any prominent political openness: Syria, for example, is under pressure with the Israeli occupation of its Golan Heights.
So, what must be done, then? Technically, we can't let interventionism get in the way of Arab political reform. Sadly, there are many advocates who claim that interventionism is the only solution because, according to such people, the Arab world will never change itself. Such a statement is racist, and backward as the statement "a tiger will never change its stripes"; that's of course assuming that Arabs are just animals and the only way to make them "human" is to become more "civilized" (i.e. Westernized). Putting such (politically) incorrect bullcrap aside, we can see that there have been several strides in reform in the MidEast. For example, there has been the recent elections in Qatar and also in Kuwait, with the recent introduction of female candidates in the latter run (sadly, no women won, but hey, this is a step, right?). Such reform initiatives waned, though, in places like Saudi Arabia, especially when the nation's populace fell to security crackdowns in response to attacks from within the nation. Political activism is still a problem in many areas as well, as political parties in certain nations have been banned from running. Free expression is limited, and religious values in society are being viewed in flux. With regards to the economy, a handful of nations in the Arab world suffer from corruption within the government, in the form of keeping cash from the public and downplaying salaries, etc. Furthermore, monetary systems in many MidEast countries are selective: it is more like survival of the fittest, with the richer upper class coming out on top at the expense of those below them. Poverty is another problem that needs to be addressed: even though it is a global problem, it doesn't make it someone else's problem (refer to above paragraph about interventionism). Socially, education and healthcare need to be addressed as well, making it necessary for people to see that such systems are reformed in order to better serve the people and provide for the next generations. Another problem unsung of is the influence from outside on our people and how it has swayed the public to stray away from Islamic and Arab values that are necessary to our survival; I'm not saying that it's a bad thing, but Arab culture and Islam must survive as well. Seriously, we can see that the road to reform is not going to be an easy one.
Speaking of Islam, it is also a subject of debate on whether to reform it or not. It is often argued that there must be a "Martin Luther" of some sort so he may "reform" Islam. Consider first that Islam does not have a body like the Catholic Church and is made up of many sects (according to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), he once said that Islam will be split into 73 sects). Furthermore, if you take a look at Islamic demographics worldwide, you will notice that most Muslims are concentrated in East Asia, but are otherwise dispersed throughout, therefore nullifying the concept of Islamic unity. I also posted in May that Islam itself is in no need for reformation because of how it is perverted and radicalized, but what needs to be reformed is how it is taught. For example, there should be less emphasis on radical aspects and more emphasis on the basic tenets and how to deal with them in life. Another thing that needs to be changed is not to root out extremist sheikhs, but to drown them out with the voices of more moderate Muslims, opposed to terrorism and U.S. imperialism alike.
According to Islam itself, reform is a must: it is a God-given duty for Muslims to rise against oppression and injustice, promote virtue and good policies, and root out vice and corrupt policies alike. A prominent Islamic voice against corruption has been Sheikh Yusuf Al Qardawi. He claims, for example, that economic corruption is one of the most important issues that are Islamically addressed, along with the issue of political balance of power. Many other issues that need reform come into focus, such as the prevention of moral corruption through the invasion of Western culture, the prevention of environmental corruption in the form of pollution and other human actions that plague the Earth, and many other issues like education, science, medicine and other social aspects. Like myself, he is opposed to interventionism and against corruption within the Arab political elite, and stresses the importance of gradualism during the developmental and reform processes, which is contrary to the abrupt changes that the U.S. plans to implement. Above all, Islam seeks to reform the nations so that they may become independent and more functional.
So, where must the change come from? As Amr Musa said (repeating an adage),
"Change must come from within."Such a proposal seems impossible to comprehend for those who do not believe that the Arabs should be allowed to govern themselves. An Arab resource website, Al-Bab.com, has published a compilation of reports on the issue. Taking from this, one can see that the main issues for reform are split into three distinct areas: political, economical and social, of which the first and third are of greatest importance, even though they are powered by the second.
To address political reform, we need to gradually abolish the authoritarian regimes that rule over us and place instead centrist regimes based on both religious and secular principles, taking the best from the two and discarding what might offend minorities within the Arab world. While we have seen what sectarian divisions and governments bring unto themselves in Iraq (more chaos), one must put in mind that Arab political parties should bring no mention of sects, but of political ideologies. Egypt, though still rife with corruption, is the closest example of this aspect. Furthermore, capital punishment should go with the policies as dictated by Islam: unless the criminal repents for his/her actions, the punishment has to be applied. Regarding the judicial system, fair trials have to be implemented, and witnesses should be taken into consideration. A representative per district per city has to be elected to represent the people of the said district in parliament, and efforts should be made to suit laws for the people, not the government. If laws become inefficient, they should be renewed. Moreover, care should be taken that the balance of power is preserved, and that leaders don't have their butts stuck to the throne for at most five years. Also, considering the different political climates in each country, one must apply democracy gradually to each country with the people of the said country making the changes for themselves. In addition to all this, the public must play a part in actively getting to know their rights and keeping the government in check, not the other way around.
With regards to the economy, I'm not an expert at this. All I can say is that the Arab countries should work to keep free trade up while trying to decrease dependence on aid. Moreover, subsidization should decrease, as this is a source of corruption in many Arab countries, especially those in the Gulf States. Governmental projects should be made to discover resources, exploit them, and, if necessary, nationalize them for the benefit of reform until the necessary goals are achieved. Free trade can be encouraged for the benefit of the Arab populace, and effects of globalization that might have effects on the society should be watched over. The Arab Business Council already stated their plans for economic reform in the MidEast. They include:
Economic Liberalization and ReformsThis is pretty much a solid blueprint for economical progress. With respect to the current situation, Sufyan Alissa of Al Ahram weekly wrote an excellent article of reform in perspective. He writes that,
-Open the markets through trade liberalization schemes in both goods and services (while some Arab governments continue to manage macro-economic stability)
-Harmonize trade policies across the region, creating an Arab Free Trade Zone
-Remove restrictions on foreign investments to drive Foreign Direct Investment,
-Intellectual Property Rights, investment, property protection rights
-Boost exports, focus on services and value added products
-De-emphasize low cost expatriate labour and build a local, skilled labour force through good education systems
-Diversify the economy to encourage entrepreneurship and a greater role for the private sector through improved access to trade financing
-Build infrastructure – roads, ports, airports, storage and handling facilities
-Eliminate government monopolies
Governance
-Promote respect for the rule of law
-Enhance transparency on economic data and policy-making procedures
-Address corruption and favouritism
-Drive private-public partnerships
-Enhance accountability
-Allow full protection for foreign investments and property rights
-Improve the quality of the public sector
-Strengthen legal mechanisms for commercial arbitration and dispute settlement
-Strengthen the Arab judicial system including its independence and efficiency
Human Resource Development
-Improve educational systems and align them with the needs of national, regional and, indeed, global markets
-Focus on vocational and technical training in line with the needs of industry
-Improve productivity at the macro and micro levels
-Enhance Research & Development efforts
-Encourage women’s empowerment
Since the mid-1980s the Arab world has experienced several waves of economic reforms, mainly as part of the stabilisation and structural adjustment programmes prescribed by the Bretton Woods institutions which followed the principles of market reform in reducing the role of the state in the economy. Despite this reform, whether in response to internal or external forces and pressures, the Arab countries have failed to sustain economic growth, improve their position in the international market and promote foreign investment. At the same time, unemployment and poverty rates have increased sharply. In light of these major problems, Arab states and several international institutions have tried to change the style of reform and focus more closely on governance issues, liberalise the economy, thoroughly privatise public institutions and be more sensitive to the issue of unemployment and poverty. In all cases this reform has been shallow, has reproduced the same economic elites that are often close or part of the political regime, and has therefore failed to yield substantial changes in the standards of living of ordinary people in the region.This is just to stress on my point that employment should be diversified and made readily available, with salary grants enforced. Furthermore, poverty should be countered by encouraging charity and at the same time giving those who are less fortunate a better position with better jobs.
Arab countries have not undergone economic transformations or fundamental economic reforms that are based on a clear and well defined vision. Arab countries have relied on oil revenue, remittances from abroad and aid to delay implementing fundamental economic reform. These sources have been used as a tool for easing economic and political pressures, and keeping the social contract intact by purchasing loyalty to the state.The Arab states have thus failed to become economically independent, and thus independence is necessary. This is accomplished by exploitation of resources and bringing forth free trade and privatization of businesses (thus, independence of economy).
Three main factors make profound economic reform in the Arab world imperative. The first of these is that oil revenue is temporary and there is no guarantee that oil prices will not collapse in the coming years as in the 1980s. Second, the high population growth rate, and the need for creating millions of jobs during the coming 20 years, exacerbate the need for reform. The third factor is that labour migration prospects have diminished and thus remittances from abroad can no longer be considered as one of the main sources of revenue in the case of Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan. Given this gloomy picture and in direct contradiction with the prevailing approach, Arab countries should seize this opportunity and use these resources to mitigate the negative impact of fundamental reform in the nearest future.Breaking the status quo would then be necessary for reform: in that case, a Palestinian state must be achieved in order for reform to continue.
In addition, Arab countries often use the occupation of Palestine and recently the occupation of Iraq as an excuse to maintain the status quo and to avoid implementing fundamental reform. Their argument is that reform under this circumstance has the risk of political instability. While this factor plays an important role in some countries, certainly in the case of Palestine and Iraq, for other countries, it indicates the lack of good governance structure and the lack of real political and legal commitment essential to substantive and expansive reform. Moreover there is a lack of transparency and accountability in implementing existing reform policies and programmes, and a lack of inclusiveness of different parties in the reform debate, particularly civil society and representatives of the private sector.
The current political regime in the Arab world does not permit the advancement of the reform agenda while the institutional structure is incapable of creating the needed environment for implementing successful reform policies. This state of affairs strengthens the resistance capability of the groups benefiting from maintaining the status quo arrangements, and limits the space for greater public participation in policy-making and the shaping of the reform agenda. Economic reform in the Arab world needs to move into a new direction if the economic challenges that have been facing the region are to be addressed. Certainly, it needs to be matched with political reform that is based on domestic agenda, so the hope for better quality of life in the region can be more realistic.An excellent analysis, overall, which asserts my above points.
Now, on to social reform. Privatization of health care is a vital step, as this removes the load from the government and enables it to implement political and economical reform without regard to social issues. Furthermore, the judicial system, with respect to social issues, should be re-evaluated: freedom of expression should be implemented, and public education by privatized institutions should be implemented in case of Islamic countries and reserved societies (for example, smoking, drinking, etc.). Gun control should be modernized, as increasing gun control might lead to crimes, according to this AEI report. With regards to education, the system should incoroporate both Arab and Western elements (the best of two worlds), and reforming Arab education with recent scientific findings, curricula, etc., and make Arab education world-class, as it was during the times of the Islamic Caliphates. The issue of abortion should be taken seriously, though, from my standpoint. Returning to freedom, freedom should be given, but education on sensible freedom, which is simply freedom with order, should be encouraged. The public, furthermore, should be made politically aware and more open to differing viewpoints. While the Arab schools of thought (in all areas) differ widely in their opinions on worldly matters, it can still be improved. University education should also be a focus, and accreditation is a must for all schools professing foreign curricula. Religion is another aspect sacred to Eastern society, as Eastern societies have historically drifted towards religion more than secularism. Religious freedom should be encouraged, and, with the privatization of construction firms, etc., so should freedom of worshipping in wherever you want; that is, mosques, churches and synagogues, etc., should be treated equally. The workforce should also be given freedoms, and the right to strike when the situation demands it. In addition to all this, the public should be made aware of what their rights are and how they can make their voice heard in the parliament. Security is a concern in this troubled region of the world, but a security force should be made so that they don't endanger the liberties of the people (i.e. no inhibitions whatsoever on press freedom). The armies should also be able to rebuild themselves, while abiding by international law. In this way, reform is gradually implemented and brought successfully into the Arab world, as people should become accustomed to each reform procedure, one step at a time.
Well, there's a lot to this topic, but that's all my guts can spill. I leave you with a link to the Arab Reform Forum and a link to the Arab Reform Initiative, in case you are interested in more details. Reform and progress are necessary steps in political progression, as progressiveness roots out all conservative evils and bad policies, while implementing what's best for the people, not serving the selfish interests of the government and its politicians who supposedly represent their people. In the long run, reform will be tough, but it will be possible. And hopefully, we will be able to root out the darkness, and bring out the light. Perhaps, the Arabs will rid themselves from Western intervention and instead stay on a course of free trade, with the establishment of a Palestinian state and full recognition of Arab sovereignity. I pray that we enter a new age of honor, glory and light, out of this age of corruption, betrayal and greed, and that we as Arabs become fully independent and show the world that we are capable of being leaders of tomorrow and beacons of hope for those who seek it, and preserve Islam, bringing it out of the murky depths of Islamophobia and perversion. Finally, I'd like to stress that change must come from within. It won't be an easy path, but in the long run, I'm sure we can make it.
Salaam, from
Saracen
Comments
Post a Comment