| |
COMMENTARY
Beware the Gorbachev
experience
By Ehsan Ahrari
Political pundits in Washington are criticizing
the rulers of Qatar and Bahrain for talking a lot about
democracy during their recent trip to the United States.
But in reality, say the critics, the rulers are merely
taking measures to prolong the status quo by merely
bringing about calculated changes - "managed democracy"
- is the buzzword describing their approach to political
change. The criticism of Saudi Arabia is even harsher.
Even though Adel al-Jubeir - the "silver-tongued sultan
of spin", foreign policy adviser of Crown Prince
Abdullah, Bin Abdel Aziz - has promised that his country
would cooperate with the United States in thoroughly
investigating the May 12 suicide attacks in Riyadh, and
is doing its utmost about cleaning up Saudi Arabia of
al-Qaeda's influence, the actual performance of the
Saudi government has been less than satisfactory.
There is little doubt that when it comes to
introducing political reforms, any measure of
satisfaction on the part of American critics may turn
out to be a risky proposition for these Gulf monarchies
that have never established a record as trailblazing
reformers of any sort.
Besides, those rulers
know only too well that political change of a major
proportion, first and foremost, sweeps aside its major
instigators. What emerges after that is anyone's guess.
They vividly recall what happened to Mikhail Gorbachev
and his communist empire, the Soviet Union. He only
wanted to manage political and economic change in order
to make his country a better competitor of the
capitalist behemoth, the United States. But once the
momentum for change garnered strength in the streets of
the Soviet Union, the empire imploded. That historical
development turned out to be good news for the United
States, but it is envisioned as a tragedy by a number of
Russians, even to this day. There is only one superpower
left in the post-Cold War world, and it is not Russia.
So it is understandable that, even though Qatar
and Bahrain are bringing about noticeable changes within
their polities, neither of them is interested in
transitioning into a Scandinavian democracy. But the
fact that political change is being introduced inside
their borders not only is altering the nature and
institutional structures of their societies, but also
will affect Saudi Arabia, the hardest nut to crack, from
the perspective of bringing about democratic change.
Islamic orthodoxy is the force that is more well
entrenched in Saudi Arabia than anywhere else in the
world of Islam. The Saudi monarchy will remain in power
as long as it continues to serve as its guardian and
promoter. The moment it creases to play that role, it
would also lose its very raison d'etre from within. And
an outcome may not be replacement of the current
monarchy with a more open or more pro-Western political
system. On the contrary, the alternative to the Saudi
monarchy is likely to be another system - monarchy or a
dictatorship - that is even more orthodox than the
current regime in Riyadh. Such happenstance is not
presently contemplated in Washington.
Even if it
is contemplated, what are the options for the Bush
administration? The present Saudi regime is not likely
to fight and outlaw the al-Qaeda-like frame of reference
so prevalent within its borders without creating
conditions for its own demise - an option certainly not
preferred by Washington. But allowing the political
status quo - ie, not systematically and forcefully going
after al-Qaeda - is also not an option with which the
Bush administration can live for long. That would be
regarded as accepting defeat in Washington's "war
against terrorism".
What emerges from the
preceding is that for Qatar and Bahrain - as well as
other Persian Gulf emirates - the choice is between
continuation of the political status quo and gradual
introduction of a managed democracy. In all likelihood,
these emirates would continue their march toward
democracy, no matter how slow and deliberate.
But for Saudi Arabia, the issue is of an
entirely different nature. The monarchy in that country
is facing an era of continued uncertainty, sharp
challenges to its legitimacy from within, no matter what
option it decides to adopt vis-a-vis al-Qaeda.
In the final analysis, the US will have to
accept the fact that the current monarchy will continue
its haphazard and half-hearted campaign of eradicating
al-Qaeda with minimum possible damage to its stability.
Its legitimacy is likely to be damaged, but that damage
may not be devastating as long as the current role of
the monarchy as the guardian of Wahhabism - minus its
emphasis on promotion of global jihad - is not
perceptibly altered. Even if that goes against the US's
resolve not to compromise on the issue of terrorism, it
will still have to be acceptable, though not as a
much-talked about contradiction. Even George W Bush does
not want the Saudi monarchy to meet the fate of Mikhail
Gorbachev's Soviet Union. The end of the Cold War was a
victory for the US. A cataclysmic political change in
Saudi Arabia, on the contrary, has a foreboding
potential for the US. A potential that should be avoided
at all costs.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an
Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic
analyst.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online
Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
