How true are the theories that societies, religions and civilisations are doomed to clash? asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed The end of the last century saw the spread of a theory developed by the well-known American scholar Samuel B Huntington, postulating that civilisations are bound to clash with each other. Actually, Huntington's "clash of civilisations" theory proceeds from a premise that is in direct opposition to the premise of a theory developed round about the same time by another American scholar, Francis Fukuyama. Known as the "end of history" theory, it postulated that the breakdown of the Soviet Union had ended the division of the world along ideological lines and removed the main source of global tension. The theory was bolstered by the advent of globalisation, which was supposed to break down cultural, economic and political barriers between societies and pave the way to their growing complementarity and integration. The idea behind the inevitability of a "clash of civilisations" is that each society has specific attributes, at least in the economic and social fields, which distinguish it from all other societies and which endow it with a cultural cachet of its own, what is described as its "identity". The identity of any individual is the sum total of the attributes which distinguish him from other individuals. Identity is a complex notion, made up of the combinations and permutations of how human societies attract -- or repel -- each other. This paradigm is at its most complex when the clash of civilisations takes the form of a clash between religions, as in the current clash between Islam and the West, which Huntington predicted long before it acquired its present proportions. Indeed, the prediction seemed unwarranted at the time. The bipolar world order still prevailed and nobody imagined that the confrontation between the Russians and the Taliban in Afghanistan would pave the way for the confrontation between the Americans and Al- Qaeda. Twenty-two years before 9/11 placed Islam and the West on their present collision course, the Soviet Union was facing its own version of 9/11 following its invasion of Afghanistan at the end of 1979. The Soviet regime had reached a high degree of stagnation and deterioration under Brezhnec, which resurrected the Islamic identity of the Soviet Republics of South Asia. The Afghan war, first with Russia, then with America, articulated a repressed problem which exploded in one of the most backward regions of the world where the clash between local and international conditions reached a peak. The situation drew America and Russia closer to each other, with both Bush and Putin keen to accelerate the liquidation of the remnants of the Cold War. As they joined hands in face of the new challenge, the confrontation increasingly came to be seen as one between the Judeo-Christian West and Islam. More and more, the religious dimension was acquiring precedence over the political and, while this did not mean that history had come to an end as anticipated by Fukuyama, it now seemed that history was no longer the decisive element in the unfolding of events. There is no denying that the dreaded "clash of civilisations" is upon us, albeit one that is being waged between unequal protagonists. And, precisely because of the lack of parity between the protagonists, it is unlikely to end any time soon. The ideological divide of the Cold War has been replaced by an economic/technological divide, with some civilisations better equipped than others to take advantage of the historical and socio-economic environment. Across the divide, given sections of society in other civilisations suffer from different degrees of want and deprivation, which make death in their eyes a lesser evil than the continuation of life. These are the conditions that nurture terrorism, suicide operations and the willingness to sacrifice one's life for no other reason than to inflict damage on the opponent. A situation in which entire communities live in a state of hopelessness, without any prospect of a better life free from grinding poverty, oppression and persecution, necessarily breeds violence, and there is no way to circumvent it as long as despair and frustration prevail. For civilisations to survive, conditions should not deteriorate below a certain critical threshold anywhere in the world. A global (not only regional) criterion should be established in this matter. In the context of a global system that objectively favours a rich North over a poor South this is no easy matter. The difficulties even relatively developed countries are having to meet the criteria needed to join the European Union gives an idea of how overwhelming the task would be if extended to the whole world. The common meaning attributed to "the clash of civilisations" is that it is an inevitable development deriving from the very nature of civilisations. According to this understanding, civilisations are not only outside the realm of History, but also of Ethics. For, if we accept the notion that they are doomed to clash, we must also accept the notion that the clash does not occur in terms of what is just or unjust, legitimate or illegitimate, lawful or unlawful. The notion that the clash of civilisations is inevitable is diametrically opposed to the notion that globalisation is a mechanism by which different civilisations will be drawn closer together. But is globalisation really a step towards some form of ultimate integration or is it, rather, taking us towards a multiplicity of clashing civilisations? In other words, is the global community built on complementarity, interpretation and clashes at the same time? Can it be based on both interdependence and mutual rejection? Is co-existence possible between such phenomena? One logical conclusion to be drawn from the discrepancy in the socio- economic buildup of various societies is that it leads to a discrepancy in the relative weight of the elements of collision or complementarity in each society. There is neither absolute antagonism nor absolute co-existence. To assume that there is only co-existence is not possible in a world marked by a scarcity of the resources that can satisfy human needs. And the assumption that there is only antagonism runs counter to the growing phenomenon of globalisation. So there is no way of avoiding the co-existence of both clashes and interdependence concomitantly. Beliefs and ideologies differ from one place to another. There is no common denominator between them all. For this reason, albeit for considerations of a procedural character only, it is not possible to proceed from one ideology or one religion alone. It is worth noting in this connection the events which threatened to spark religious strife in Egypt a few days ago. Such events do not remain restricted to the religious domain alone, but reverberate in society as a whole. They provide a thermometer that can measure the temperature of social tensions in society at large. It is also important to remember that the most important thing is not objective reality but how that reality is perceived and interpreted. As every individual endows objective reality with elements derived from his personal experience, reality becomes distorted to reflect the vision of the individual. When outlooks are determined through the prism of imagination, when imagination plays a role in determining the course of events, this can give rise to a dangerously chaotic situation. We have become familiar with the assumption that objective reality, because it moves from the past to the future via the present produces a way of looking at things, where movement is always forward-oriented and in continual progress. But the way we imagine objective reality often violates what actually happens. This distorts the understanding of progress and exposes it to misconceptions. How then to control the unfolding of events? How to be sure that our observations and deductions are correct in order to avert catastrophes before they occur?
