Opinion, May 2003, Al-Jazeerah.info
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine
Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people
Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah
Cities, localities, and tourist attractions
Pacing change or changing pace?
Wissam S. Yafi
The Daily Star, 5/26/03
As Arab regimes begin to feel the heat from
masses wanting change as well as the international community tired of
popular repression whip-lashing in their own backyards an interesting
theme that has come to the fore is the pace in which change should occur
change meaning reform. While one typically finds that regimes in the
Arab world do not always agree with change; if and when they finally get
around to it, they resort to the paternalistic argument of it needing to
be done at a slow pace so as not to negatively affect the dynamics of the
region. Anything rash, they warn, would yield “undesired results”
pointing to revolutionary Iran, Algeria’s civil war, Afghanistan’s
Taleban, and the Islamic militants supposedly waiting in the shadows in
Palestine, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia.
But if one thinks about it, will the problems be solved by pacing change
or rather by changing pace? Is our region’s predicament due to the speed
of reforms that have been introduced, or is it due to slow or
never-seriously-introduced-in-the-first-place reforms? Since the Arab
world itself does not offer much experience on reform, one needs to look
to other places. Unfortunately, history does not seem to be consistent
with respect to the pace of reform. Sometimes a quick split with the past
has yielded reasonably good results, as was the case with the 18th century
American revolution, the 19th century Japanese Meiji Restoration, and the
20th century end of the Soviet Union. Sometimes slow change has also
worked, such as the case of modern China and, to a certain degree, Chile
and Spain.
Closer to home, ironically, many of the regimes now calling for slow
change themselves came to power through very quick and revolutionary
upheaval. Indeed, Arab history reached its zenith on the heels of a
blitzkrieg conquest seldom seen before or since. So, where exactly does
this notion of the requirement for so slow a pace of change in the Arab
world come from particularly when economic and socio political theories
do not give clear guidance? Could it be self-interest? Is it not evident
that self-interest exists with anyone who has been in power for decades
or has benefited from it to call for unhurried change.
Then again, could it not be genuine fear? Autocratic Arab regimes may have
much to fear for their murky past and their opaque policies. Would those
who are socio-economically distraught react violently, would families of
abducted loved ones take revenge, or would religious zealots take over?
While all these fears may be legitimate, an equally legitimate question is
why the ruling regimes have not able to circumvent them. Surely,
“insufficient time” could not have been a factor, as most of these
regimes have been in power for decades.
While Rome was not built in a day, much less-endowed contemporary and
yet equally complex societies (such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and
Singapore) all reformed and as a result have become much freer.
What is it that Arab regimes can do going forward? For one, they can
continue to do nothing. Regimes have been in power for decades. But they
would do this at their own peril as Saddam Hussein saw first hand, and
as the Saudis and Palestinians are seeing now with all the turmoil around
them.
A second option is for them to simply pack up and leave a risky
proposition, and perhaps not the optimal one, as economic strife and
religious fervor could lead to regional anarchy.
The third option is to genuinely speed up political, economic, social and
educational reform. Risky? Of course it is, but not more than the risks of
doing nothing or pacing reform at a snail’s pace.
At a time when the region is going through some tough times, it can yet
count its blessings for the resource endowment that God has bequeathed it.
However, it must also use it for the benefit of improving the well-being
of the people.
Ceding more power to the people should take center stage. What the region
needs most now is a fraternal changing of the pace of reform as opposed to
a paternal pacing of change. This should not be done by feeding them, but
by trusting them and making them responsible for their own decisions and
lives.
Wissam S. Yafi, founding partner of an Arab-American consulting firm in Washington, wrote this commentary for The Daily Star
 |
| Earth, a planet hungry for peace |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03). |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03). |