This commentary was published in al-Hayat on 26/12/2010
It is not true that conditions of stability throughout the Maghreb region vary greatly in intensity. Instead, they are closer to being an contagion that spreads, irrespective of differences between one country and another; thus it seems that Tunisia, which portrays itself as a model of stability upheld by an iron fist, has gotten caught up in the wave of violence, which recently hit the streets of Sidi Bou Zeid.
Prior to this extraordinary explosion, North African countries were understood to be trying to respond more closely to concerns of democracy in a way that would give the people more freedom of movement, of expressing its anger regarding unfair government decisions or socio-economic injustice. However, the experience of Tunisia confirms without a shadow of a doubt that moving away from democracy also moves things closer to antagonized sentiment and further conflicts. Nevertheless, linking the two cases, namely moving closer or further away from embracing modern laws and values, reflects a certain degree of tension that can only be contained through a solution that relies on openness.
Tunisia, which has teetered considerably in the direction of democratic openness, will have to juggle between what it believes to be a viable plan for economic prosperity, if only for a short time, and a political alternative that guarantees an improvement in socioeconomic conditions, based on strengthening the peaceful transfer of power. The winds of anger, when they come out of season, can sweep away everything.
Neighboring Algeria has been more impacted by uncalculated steps toward openness and enshrining political pluralism, on the rubble of the National Liberation Front’s domination of the country’s affairs throughout its modern history. It took years, and a high price was paid, before a ray of hope appeared at the end of the tunnel. Even though the Liberation Front is not the ruling party in Tunisia, as it brought together both civilian and military figures, the two countries share the following: they left behind the model of one ruling party that monopolizes political influence.
In Morocco as well, it took decades to see the features of a new political accord appear, bringing to power the fierce opponents of the regime of the late King Hassan II. However, this did not prevent the resumption of certain manifestations of social chaos. Another state in the Maghreb, the Libyan Jamahiriya, is searching for the features of this path, while the weakest state in the region, Mauritania, has followed the democratic path in its own fashion, allowing opposition voices to become more outspoken.
In a similar fashion to these developments on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, Spain once moved in the right direction. All it did was give the experience of General Franco sufficient time to run its course. Despite all of its political defects, it focused on boosting socio-economic conditions, so that when democratic openness came, Spain had no difficulties in catching the European “train,” at least in terms of absorbing the complex issues of progress, something that was concluded by espousing the democratic option. Spain was helped in this by the fact that Europe was able to absorb the experience of Spain, along with Portugal, as the Europeans were in urgent need of protecting their southern flank by expanding in this direction.
The irony is that the unity project that North Africans were championing at the end of the 1960s resembled the parallel direction the Europeans took; this began with a European common market, followed by the European Union, and then a unified currency. This did not rule out a comprehensive view of balance in EU membership, as the EU leaned toward attracting new partners, particularly from the former Soviet bloc after the Cold War ended.
However, amid this momentum, there was a setback for efforts for a Maghreb Union, even though these countries had not experienced destructive wars among them, as the Europeans had. In fact, this project had all the elements of success, because there were historical, geographical and spiritual realities that pushed things toward harmony and accord, and also because all of the conditions of economic integration in terms of infrastructures, resources, and human and material wealth strengthened the option of unity.
Today, the Maghreb unity project appears to be reasserting itself. It had failed in the past due to continued political disputes and different views on certain issues, which obstructed the natural path of such a project. However, the socio-economic aspect appears to be the one best poised to be absorbed, at least in terms of formulating the outlines of economic integration, lifting barriers, and benefiting from the region’s potential.
In the absence of political will, it will be difficult to move to the phase of useful action. It is unfair to suppose that things such as unrest and social upheaval might open people’s eyes to the advantages of a Maghreb Union - if not for the sake of launching a large-scale strategic endeavor that re-vitalizes the region, then at the least to do away with the socio-economic difficulties that the region suffers.
It is not true that conditions of stability throughout the Maghreb region vary greatly in intensity. Instead, they are closer to being an contagion that spreads, irrespective of differences between one country and another; thus it seems that Tunisia, which portrays itself as a model of stability upheld by an iron fist, has gotten caught up in the wave of violence, which recently hit the streets of Sidi Bou Zeid.
Prior to this extraordinary explosion, North African countries were understood to be trying to respond more closely to concerns of democracy in a way that would give the people more freedom of movement, of expressing its anger regarding unfair government decisions or socio-economic injustice. However, the experience of Tunisia confirms without a shadow of a doubt that moving away from democracy also moves things closer to antagonized sentiment and further conflicts. Nevertheless, linking the two cases, namely moving closer or further away from embracing modern laws and values, reflects a certain degree of tension that can only be contained through a solution that relies on openness.
Tunisia, which has teetered considerably in the direction of democratic openness, will have to juggle between what it believes to be a viable plan for economic prosperity, if only for a short time, and a political alternative that guarantees an improvement in socioeconomic conditions, based on strengthening the peaceful transfer of power. The winds of anger, when they come out of season, can sweep away everything.
Neighboring Algeria has been more impacted by uncalculated steps toward openness and enshrining political pluralism, on the rubble of the National Liberation Front’s domination of the country’s affairs throughout its modern history. It took years, and a high price was paid, before a ray of hope appeared at the end of the tunnel. Even though the Liberation Front is not the ruling party in Tunisia, as it brought together both civilian and military figures, the two countries share the following: they left behind the model of one ruling party that monopolizes political influence.
In Morocco as well, it took decades to see the features of a new political accord appear, bringing to power the fierce opponents of the regime of the late King Hassan II. However, this did not prevent the resumption of certain manifestations of social chaos. Another state in the Maghreb, the Libyan Jamahiriya, is searching for the features of this path, while the weakest state in the region, Mauritania, has followed the democratic path in its own fashion, allowing opposition voices to become more outspoken.
In a similar fashion to these developments on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, Spain once moved in the right direction. All it did was give the experience of General Franco sufficient time to run its course. Despite all of its political defects, it focused on boosting socio-economic conditions, so that when democratic openness came, Spain had no difficulties in catching the European “train,” at least in terms of absorbing the complex issues of progress, something that was concluded by espousing the democratic option. Spain was helped in this by the fact that Europe was able to absorb the experience of Spain, along with Portugal, as the Europeans were in urgent need of protecting their southern flank by expanding in this direction.
The irony is that the unity project that North Africans were championing at the end of the 1960s resembled the parallel direction the Europeans took; this began with a European common market, followed by the European Union, and then a unified currency. This did not rule out a comprehensive view of balance in EU membership, as the EU leaned toward attracting new partners, particularly from the former Soviet bloc after the Cold War ended.
However, amid this momentum, there was a setback for efforts for a Maghreb Union, even though these countries had not experienced destructive wars among them, as the Europeans had. In fact, this project had all the elements of success, because there were historical, geographical and spiritual realities that pushed things toward harmony and accord, and also because all of the conditions of economic integration in terms of infrastructures, resources, and human and material wealth strengthened the option of unity.
Today, the Maghreb unity project appears to be reasserting itself. It had failed in the past due to continued political disputes and different views on certain issues, which obstructed the natural path of such a project. However, the socio-economic aspect appears to be the one best poised to be absorbed, at least in terms of formulating the outlines of economic integration, lifting barriers, and benefiting from the region’s potential.
In the absence of political will, it will be difficult to move to the phase of useful action. It is unfair to suppose that things such as unrest and social upheaval might open people’s eyes to the advantages of a Maghreb Union - if not for the sake of launching a large-scale strategic endeavor that re-vitalizes the region, then at the least to do away with the socio-economic difficulties that the region suffers.
No comments:
Post a Comment