The Arab world's increasing focus on reform would benefit from an examination of the recent past, writes Mustafa El-Feki* In the 1950s and 1960s the Arab world was divided between traditional systems with a tribal structure and history and progressive systems that espoused socialist ideas and harboured military inclinations. The Arab-Israeli conflict played an obvious role in the development of these two. But which regime type is more suited to Arab countries -- constitutional monarchy or democratic republic? Prior to the emergence of modern states the region was ruled by theological authorities associated with the Islamic caliphate. The modern state was, in this context, an accomplishment in itself. The sophistication of the political scene differed from one Arab country to another, depending on the colonialist past of each as well as other, older factors. Egypt, for example, is an ancient riparian society whereas Saudi Arabia emerged as a result of the unifying efforts of King Abdul-Aziz. Each Arab country has incorporated elements of its ancient past in its modern form, whether kingdom, republic, emirate or sultanate, and the differences among them are to be found in their nature of government and power succession as well as their openness and readiness for change. Arab regimes, despite the obvious variety, have much in common. Arab republics assume an Asian quality when it comes to succession. When Iraqi President Abdul-Salam Aref died in a plane accident his brother, Abdul-Rahman Aref, took over. When Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad died his son Bashir took over. Precedents exist for such scenarios throughout Asia. The Nehru dynasty did it in India, Bandranaike took over from her husband in Sri Lanka and Benazir Bhutto rose to power in Pakistan, following in the steps of her father. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's daughter Hasina did the same in Bangladesh while Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, a former president's daughter, kept the torch alight in the Philippines . Republics, then, do not exist in a strictly conventional sense, since in many cases the potential to bequeath power remains. Yet other states have maintained democratic forms despite continued pressure for power to be inherited. Sonia Ghandi, for example, declined the post of prime minister in India despite pleas from her party. For some constitutional monarchy provides an excellent model of government. The transfer of power is simple and the future king has usually enjoyed the benefits of grooming. The recommended type of monarchy is usually of the British variety where the monarch owns -- theoretically -- but does not rule. But such a system evolved from a rigorous tradition and demands equally rigorous rules. It is hard to find a parallel in the Arab world, though some Arab constitutional monarchies may be moving in that direction. Republics are supposed to allow the masses to rule and provide opportunities for upward mobility to their populations, though these assumptions do not hold in the case of military or semi-military regimes. Republics, supposed to be democratic, can fall into the grip of dictatorships. Whether monarchical or republican, what matters most is for regimes to allow for political participation, to respect human rights and uphold the law. Britain and France are two countries in a similar stage of progress and growth -- one is a constitutional monarchy and the other a presidential republic. India, the world's largest democracy, has a stable parliamentary system in which the powers of the president are ceremonial and the prime minister wields power in the country. The same thing is true in Britain where the Court of Saint James does not venture beyond the antiques of protocol and ceremony. Her Majesty owns, nominally, but does not rule. The UK system is parliamentary and the prime minister handles the executive affairs of the state. The task facing the Arab world, then, should focus less on the outward form of government than on establishing the traits of real democracy, enlarging the base of political participation and allowing for the representation of all political forces. We have to agree that it is the state that is the source of authority and establish a system that allows for the rotation of power. In Israel, a country known for its racism and aggression, a parliamentary system exists, based on plurality and in which the president has nominal power while executive authority is in the hands of the prime minister. Israel's structure, based more on doctrine than politics, is hardly inspiring. But we have to admit that to succeed in reform we have to change the nature of our regimes and the morphology of our governments. We may even have to change our constitutions, for we need to lay down new foundations. In doing so we must keep three things in mind. A transparent and vital political system is an essential prerequisite of any modern state. There is no room for confusion, no space for democracy to be placed on hold. The constitution has to be respected, as must the law. We need presidential and parliamentary systems that work without the slightest degree of opacity, and we must be absolutely clear with regard to the bequeathing of power. Political systems will always vary, tailored, as they must be, according to the social cohesion and national homogeneity of individual states. Tribal and clan based societies differ from those in which modernity has altered the family structure and, by extension, the political scene. We are not tribes with flags, an insult levelled by some, but we cannot deny the existence of tribal influences in our midst. Democracy is a measure of good governance, whether republican or monarchical, and what matters is the capacity to uphold freedoms and observe human rights. For this to become possible we have to change our institutions, culture and decision making process. Change is a phenomenon that involves both governments and people. The new Iraqi regime, to give one example, may be able to establish a parliamentary government based on plurality but only so long as that decision is made by Iraqis, which requires that foreigners disappear from the scene. At the end of the day it matters little whether we have constitutional monarchies or presidential republics. The key is good governance. * The writer is chairman of the foreign affairs committee at the People's Assembly.
