Francis Matthew writes: Ability to absorb each individual's characteristics will define how people create a strong national identity
This commentary was published in The Gulf News on 14/04/2011
Many Arab nations are now looking for a new identity, and are finding the process much harder than was imagined when the wave of protests started in January. Most of the protesters wanted more inclusive and transparent government, and more liberal society. Their eclectic mix of economic and lifestyle demands were very different from their parents and other generations, who sought freedom from colonial powers under a demand for Arab nationalism, which was a clear and popular political programme.
The very difficult challenge facing the new Arab nations is how to draft a new Arab political vision which is inclusive and exciting at the same time. This inclusivity is a challenge for the politicians emerging after the protests since the sad fact is that politics tends to emphasise the differences between people, rather than bring out their similarities.
The process of public debate nearly always focuses on points of difference, hopefully to find a resolution to problems, but it is far too easy for that process to fail with the result that the powerful emotions stirred by the differences come out on top.
But this is not a new challenge for the human race. What the different Arab states are trying to do today, has been done before. Finding a healthy balance of how individuals manage their various allegiances to state, ideas and principles, family and friends, career and employer, is not unique to the Arab world, even if the way the balance will be found has to be a uniquely Arab answer.
There has been a lot of reference to western parliamentary democracy, and this is a very durable system which evolved in different ways, and has travelled around the world very effectively. But it is not the only model for inclusive politics.
India lays claim to a much older tradition of heterodox tolerance as is described in The Argumentative Indian, the inspiring book by Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen, who looks at the many forces that make India into the tolerant secular democracy that it is today.
Sen refers to the powerful effect of the Lokayata and Carvaka schools of thought from the first millennium CE which encouraged open debate, and supported the Mughal emperor Akbar in his famous open multi-religious dialogues in the late sixteenth century.
Advantages
As Sen later points out, each person carries many collectivities which build up to a particular identity. He quotes the case of an individual who is of Indian origin, a Parsi, a French citizen, a US resident, a woman, a poet, a vegetarian, an ornithologist, a Christian, and a believer in extra-terrestrial life.
All these identities have their moments: as Sen remarks, being a vegetarian is more important when going out to dinner, but having a French passport is more important when talking to the consulates.
As the power of sectarian and tribal politics unfortunately grows in the Arab world, the ability to absorb each individual's many collectivities will define how the new Arab nations will make their way forward. The problem with using religious sects as the defining unit of political activity is that there can be no way to reach out to a wider audience.
For example, Muqtada Al Sadr runs an overtly Shiite party in Iraq, and he therefore cannot appeal to a Sunni or a Kurd.
There is no way that a sectarian can offer the appeal of a truly national party, like the Republican or Democratic parties in the US, which welcome Protestant or Catholic, Muslim or atheist, women and men, vegetarians and carnivores as members. The need for this inclusive process is a major issue in Bahrain where people are still defining how to be Bahraini while being Shiite or Sunni. It is an issue in Egypt where Copts and Muslims have experienced recent tensions, even if both religions were very visible in Tahrir Square.
But it is not an impossible task to overcome years of social and political rivalry. Later this year the UAE will celebrate its 40th anniversary. In 1971, many would not have imagined that seven very different emirates would merge their identities so successfully into the UAE.
And even then they had the example of how Abu Dhabi had come back from its low point in the 1920s, and the powerful desert tribes of the Liwa and Dhafra had come back into Abu Dhabi during the 1930s and 1940s. So today it is very possible for someone to be a confident member of the Al Mansouri tribe, an involved citizen of the UAE, a loyal Abu Dhabi-ite, and maybe a passionate follower of Facebook at the same time.
The heart of how destructive narrow thinking is to be avoided is by having strong civil institutions, which can encompass a range of opinion, but at the same time allows debate and free dialogue.
The key to modern politics is finding a way to find the common ground that the majority of the population will actively support while at the same time recognising their differences.
Defining this common ground is the heart of politics, and requires leaders to express their philosophy, often repeatedly, so that people can fasten onto the ideas, and if the citizenry is politically involved, the ideas will move into their own thinking and actions.
This commentary was published in The Gulf News on 14/04/2011
Many Arab nations are now looking for a new identity, and are finding the process much harder than was imagined when the wave of protests started in January. Most of the protesters wanted more inclusive and transparent government, and more liberal society. Their eclectic mix of economic and lifestyle demands were very different from their parents and other generations, who sought freedom from colonial powers under a demand for Arab nationalism, which was a clear and popular political programme.
The very difficult challenge facing the new Arab nations is how to draft a new Arab political vision which is inclusive and exciting at the same time. This inclusivity is a challenge for the politicians emerging after the protests since the sad fact is that politics tends to emphasise the differences between people, rather than bring out their similarities.
The process of public debate nearly always focuses on points of difference, hopefully to find a resolution to problems, but it is far too easy for that process to fail with the result that the powerful emotions stirred by the differences come out on top.
But this is not a new challenge for the human race. What the different Arab states are trying to do today, has been done before. Finding a healthy balance of how individuals manage their various allegiances to state, ideas and principles, family and friends, career and employer, is not unique to the Arab world, even if the way the balance will be found has to be a uniquely Arab answer.
There has been a lot of reference to western parliamentary democracy, and this is a very durable system which evolved in different ways, and has travelled around the world very effectively. But it is not the only model for inclusive politics.
India lays claim to a much older tradition of heterodox tolerance as is described in The Argumentative Indian, the inspiring book by Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen, who looks at the many forces that make India into the tolerant secular democracy that it is today.
Sen refers to the powerful effect of the Lokayata and Carvaka schools of thought from the first millennium CE which encouraged open debate, and supported the Mughal emperor Akbar in his famous open multi-religious dialogues in the late sixteenth century.
Advantages
As Sen later points out, each person carries many collectivities which build up to a particular identity. He quotes the case of an individual who is of Indian origin, a Parsi, a French citizen, a US resident, a woman, a poet, a vegetarian, an ornithologist, a Christian, and a believer in extra-terrestrial life.
All these identities have their moments: as Sen remarks, being a vegetarian is more important when going out to dinner, but having a French passport is more important when talking to the consulates.
As the power of sectarian and tribal politics unfortunately grows in the Arab world, the ability to absorb each individual's many collectivities will define how the new Arab nations will make their way forward. The problem with using religious sects as the defining unit of political activity is that there can be no way to reach out to a wider audience.
For example, Muqtada Al Sadr runs an overtly Shiite party in Iraq, and he therefore cannot appeal to a Sunni or a Kurd.
There is no way that a sectarian can offer the appeal of a truly national party, like the Republican or Democratic parties in the US, which welcome Protestant or Catholic, Muslim or atheist, women and men, vegetarians and carnivores as members. The need for this inclusive process is a major issue in Bahrain where people are still defining how to be Bahraini while being Shiite or Sunni. It is an issue in Egypt where Copts and Muslims have experienced recent tensions, even if both religions were very visible in Tahrir Square.
But it is not an impossible task to overcome years of social and political rivalry. Later this year the UAE will celebrate its 40th anniversary. In 1971, many would not have imagined that seven very different emirates would merge their identities so successfully into the UAE.
And even then they had the example of how Abu Dhabi had come back from its low point in the 1920s, and the powerful desert tribes of the Liwa and Dhafra had come back into Abu Dhabi during the 1930s and 1940s. So today it is very possible for someone to be a confident member of the Al Mansouri tribe, an involved citizen of the UAE, a loyal Abu Dhabi-ite, and maybe a passionate follower of Facebook at the same time.
The heart of how destructive narrow thinking is to be avoided is by having strong civil institutions, which can encompass a range of opinion, but at the same time allows debate and free dialogue.
The key to modern politics is finding a way to find the common ground that the majority of the population will actively support while at the same time recognising their differences.
Defining this common ground is the heart of politics, and requires leaders to express their philosophy, often repeatedly, so that people can fasten onto the ideas, and if the citizenry is politically involved, the ideas will move into their own thinking and actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment