| |
Reform grinds to a halt
By N
Janardhan
DUBAI - The momentum for modest
reforms that many Middle Eastern countries were planning
years back have slowed down in the post-September 11
environment, one that has pushed security to the
forefront and these reforms to the backburner for now.
For about five years until September 11, the
relative stability in several countries in the region
allowed them the space to plan these reforms aimed at
making their societies more open, accountable and
self-reliant.
But after last year's attacks in
the United States and the subsequent expansion of the
war against terror, most governments in the region today
are preoccupied with keeping extremist elements at bay,
both to secure their regimes and to humor the US. The
worrying factor, however, is that it is also triggering
potential unpopularity at home.
The religious
apparatus, which the governments had neutralized by
focusing on social issues, has seized the initiative
again in many cases, forcing the reversal of several
liberal programs in the region.
Among the
casualties is Jordan's parliament election, which has
been postponed thrice in the past year. Though technical
and logistical factors have been cited for the delay, in
reality the constitutional monarchy fears that the
Islamists will gain the upper hand in an environment
where the Arab-Israeli talks are deadlocked and Amman is
being touted as a possible launch pad in the US war plan
against Iraq.
"The government fears that if
political reforms are carried out, the religious forces
will win more seats and then set an Islamic agenda,"
said Hanan Ragheb, a researcher in the department of
communications at the Al Ain University in Dubai the
United Arab Emirates. He cited Algeria as an example
where the military refused to hand over power after the
Islamists won the election in 1991, pushing the country
into an abyss of violence that lasts until today.
The Middle East peace process has hit the nadir,
with Israel terming resistance fighters as terrorists in
tune with the American definition and refusing to
negotiate unless violence ends. Within days of the
September 11 attacks last year, Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon told Washington that Palestinian President
Yasser Arafat is "our Osama bin Laden".
In the
Gulf, Saudi Arabia shelved a plan to introduce
English-language lessons to primary schoolchildren amid
fierce criticism of the proposal by the kingdom's
powerful religious establishment. The Education Ministry
had already begun preparations to start teaching English
to fourth grade Saudi students, who are 10-year-olds,
instead of seventh graders from this academic year.
But teaching English to youngsters "endangers
Islamic identity and culture and accelerates
Westernization of the society," the Islamists argued
after Western countries accused Saudi Arabia's education
system of breeding extremism.
Dr Mohammed
Mahmoud Abu Ghadeer, professor of modern Hebrew
literature and Israeli studies at the Al Azhar
University in Egypt, is against amending the school
curriculum to help inculcate the "peace culture in the
post-September 11 milieu".
In an interview,
Ghadeer explained, "These calls both from the West and
by the ruling establishments have in fact become
campaigns that have almost divided the world into two -
the Arab and Islamic worlds that are accused of
harboring and exporting various forms of violence and
extremism, and the rest of the world.
"It is no
secret that these calls are US-backed. The September 11
campaign that commenced with military intervention has
expanded to socio-religious spheres as well. Recently,
Washington asked some Arab governments to restrict the
teaching of Islamic studies in schools to four hours a
week instead of the existing 25. Why must we oblige
them?" he asked.
Just months before the
Washington and New York attacks, Kuwait had floated the
idea of imposing taxes on its citizens, who pay nothing
for cradle-to-grave government services in the oil-rich
country. A year and more later, there is no development.
"The inference is that the government doesn't want to
invite the wrath of the people at such a politically
sensitive juncture," Ragheb said in an interview.
Nowhere is the crisis more serious than in Iran.
In a continued rift between conservative religious head
of state Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and moderate President
Mohammed Khatami, the former has received a boost with
US President George W Bush's inclusion of Iran in an
axis of evil alongside Iraq and North Korea. As a
result, the reform plan touted by the government has
been stifled by the clerics. This has opened the door
for confrontation between Washington and Tehran, and the
government and people.
But it is not as if there
have been no positive developments at all. "On the
contrary, many things unthinkable prior to September 11
have been possible now. After the death of 3,000 people,
the followers of extremist factions are shocked. While
asserting their commitment to Islam, the people are
distancing themselves from such groups. There are calls
for change and many are listening to them," says Ali
Jaber Al Sabah, an independent political analyst in
Kuwait.
In early 2001, he recalls, some Kuwaiti
legislators proposed the introduction of the Sharia
(religious) penal code. But "nobody discusses it any
more. During Friday prayers, there were calls that were
intolerant and communal, but no longer. The governments
were unable to keep a tab on the financial activities of
many charity organizations, but the emphasis on an
anti-money-laundering mechanism has limited the flow of
dirty money now," Ali Jaber said in an interview, adding
that "change needs time. The good thing is that it has
been set in motion."
(Inter Press
Service)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
