Article #660: Arabs Uprising Future: Emancipation Toward Freedom
Hasan Yahya, Ph.ds, professor of Comparative Sociology and Conflict Management Expert
There is no doubt in the minds of historians and comparative social scientists about the outcomes of social change. It is the nature of things in Islamic belief, that people change, to better or worse, people change to follow the true or the false ideology. But development of historical events to make change by majority after a long oppression and traditional regimes rulers are more and more led by people who seek political stability, economic security and rule of law as a rational system govern all people.
As these scientist agree on the outcomes of social change, they do not have the same agreement on models of political change as outcomes of change. Unfortunately, the Arab uprisings were developed into bitter struggle. Arabs have moved from a non-participant in politics to participant in politics whithout experience or previous practices, for example, the relations between military and government, between religion and modern secularism, were not clearly understood which made the role of citizens unclear.
Some political analysts as well as social scientists and historian explain this chios situation. Arabs were under political and economic stagnation for decades of autocratic rule, this led to uprising, but the mecahnisms of change toppled with ill equipped civil society associations and lack political experience .
For me, complete failure as well as complete success do not describe the outcomes of these uprisings. any analysis takes completeness of goals as a measure is inaccurate. Partial success in achiving initial goals measure is much better to analyze what happened or the future of Arabs uprisings. Such initial outcomes where achieved, by removing long-term leaders in the four countries. But democracy, dignity, economic security, human rights, and social equality remained unclear on the same measure. The price for complete goals cannot come easily into balance in short time, this is the nature of things, without conflict colored with bloodshed. While the USA was optimist in what they profess as a new order in the Middle East against the well of its people, they supported what they thought to bring stability and dependence of the region rulers to foreign domination or at least on line with western policies toward curbing terrorism. They thought in the west, including the USA, that Islamist regimes will calm the Middle East, but optimism in politics cannot work in reality. The factors of conflict and change acceptance created new situations, which made the US recognize that they were betting on the wrong horse. Therefore, USA optimism toward the new order of the Middles East as a dream far from achieving. Why?
Let me remind readers, that commonality of Arab people in those countries have suffered similar regimes suppression, but readiness of these people to rule are different in terms of previous colonization powers. I mean France, Great Britain and the USA alliances with these countries influenced the outcomes. Sharp political differences were observed to the limit of banishing one party to the other. Because the imaginary picture of change outcome among parties is vague and different. The most notable clear difference among people of the Middle East, for comparative sociological analysis was the two worlds of religion and materialism, in other words, creationism and evolutionism. Exactly as the case in Europe and the United States where the rule of law and social justice stand on democratic state, practicing justice, equality and liberty, which I believe most Arab peaple appeal to achieve in making uprising. Well, I think it is the fault of modernization, which is western in the first place, the past regimes were westernized, and lived modern life without religion, but secularization was growing, and implied new social image without breaking ties with spiritual life. It can be said that most Arab people are apt to support secularism against rigid religions, which have in common the idea of supremacy and rightness over other religions and faiths. Such situation created as a result certain groups to defend religion as they imagined the past history of Islam. But Salafi and Jehadi parties (and late the Muslim Brothers in Egypt) used violence and oppression of other parties, the majority in each country stand against violence and dogmatic people and look to the western models of democracy as an ideal political type.
The situation in Egypt after ousting the Muslim Brothers president and party, which was accused of ruling small faction follows outside leadership rather than the people of Egypt showed us what happened in Egypt recently. It was a reflection of majority against dogmatism of the minority parties who came to rule according to electoral votes with a dogmatic discriminative ideology. But as any dogmatic movement have legitimate power, they became deaf to listen to other parties in a modern society after election, and began to underestimate the spirit of age coupled with lack of political experience, the one year to show sanity in governing people in modern times was too long or enough in modern times to polarize people into politics and oust Islamists even though they came by legal vote. Therefore, people of Egypt rejected dogmatic Muslim Brothers, Arab people in other countries have the same wish, because the doubt of connection with western forces led by the United States. “Tamarrud” civil mutiny, movement was rational practice not the first in history to oust a president or regime, but was the first peaceful modern way to express the people’s choice of their future which was threatened by continueuation of the Muslim Brother’s president and ideology. Over thirty millions in some estimations of secularization supporters revolted against traditionalism and dictatorship of the Muslim Brother’s Party and its president. Which created a difficult situation by stubborn minds of dogmatism and traditionalism. This scenario will be imitated in many countries to regain Arab dignity, unfortunately, other Arab countries are different in terms of military powers and loyalty to wealthy rulers. The future looks dim and unpredictable so far, in these countries. But the final outcome, according to modern age, technology and people aspirations, something new will happen in the world of politics, may be very unique in the Middle East. In this case, one thing comes to be true, Arab proverb says: Nothing is right except right, therefore false and wrong future will never prevail, and the true future will come for the Arab people. There is no doubt in my mind. As the great Arab historian and originator of sociology more than five hundred years ago, in Political change, no gain without pain. “History is our teacher.” (1100 words) www.hasanyahya.com
Hasan Yahya is a Palestinian Sociologist and Historian, former professor of Comparative Sociology and Educational Administration at Michigan State University and Jackson Community College. He is the Board Editing member at International Humanities Studies (IHS) Journal. Dr. Yahya is the originator of Arab American Encyclopedia and Ihyaa al Turath al Arabi fil Mahjar-USA. His publication may be observed on Amazon and Kindle. To reach the writer: Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Ph.D in Comparative Socioloy 1991, Michigan State University.
Ph.D in Educational Administration, Michigan State Univ.
M.A Psychology of Schhols Conflict Management, Michigan State Univ.
Diploma M.A, Oriental Studies, St. Joseph Univ. Beirut, Lebanon
B.A Modern and Classical Arab Literature
Life Achievements: Publishing 250 plus Books and 1000 plus articles
His publication may be observed on Amazon and Kindle. To reach the writer: Email: email@example.com