By Salama Ahmed Salama With increasing interest, the Arabs watch as the crisis which has struck the US, and particularly President Clinton, unfolds. The Arabs, unlike the Europeans, for instance, are not following the Monica Lewinsky saga because they are afraid that it may paralyse the US presidency, or have repercussions on global issues, economic conditions or stock markets worldwide. The Arabs are interested for totally different reasons. This crisis has allowed them to scrutinise the US system of government and some of the possible consequences of democracy and freedom. They are also fascinated because the whole affair has informed their images of what life is like in the US and the West in general -- images both appealing and repulsive, admired and feared: desirable because Arab culture is part of human culture, but at the same time despised, because our culture's values and traditions are shaped by Islam. Malice and sarcasm have dominated public reactions in the Arab world, but these are only the tip of a far larger iceberg: Arab anger and outrage at the US, its bias towards Israel and its injustice in issues vital to the Arabs. Since his election, Clinton has shown himself to be biased and vulnerable to pressure -- so vulnerable, in fact, that some pundits have suggested (only half-jokingly) that Lewinsky was "planted" by the Jewish lobby in a bid to discredit him. This conspiracy theory was put forth by some Kuwaiti journalists, who may wish to exonerate Clinton, at least in part, while indirectly apologising for the ineffectiveness of Arab policies, and our inability to face up to reality or to admit to Arab weakness at this stage. The Arabs may be gloating over the US president's misfortune, but they cannot hide their admiration of the way the case was handled, and particularly the transparency evident every step of the way. Clinton's misdeeds were recounted in the greatest detail on the Internet. The Arabs are also impressed by the fact that no attempt was made to cover up the facts to "protect the nation's honour". In the Arab world, the flimsiest excuses cover the most horrific crimes -- and the criminals walk free. In the Third World, a regime which tolerates some degree of transparency, democracy and justice will not survive for long. Such a regime would be a nightmare to rulers who tremble at the very mention of democracy and accountability, especially when these terms are applied to the private lives of high-ranking officials. In the Third World, in fact, the fate of human beings and nations is considered part of the regime's private affairs, and is, as such, not open to scrutiny. But luckily, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal has pushed the question of private versus public into the limelight once again -- and this time, there is an audience of billions. Today, the borders of private and public sometimes blur; sexual harassment or an extramarital affair can demolish a head of state's reputation, or cast doubts on his competence. An official's private life, however, is more or less private depending on the culture. President Mitterrand was known to have had a mistress and an illegitimate daughter, but the matter never aroused great public interest; nor did it conflict with the rules of the political game in France, Europeans being more liberal than Americans on this matter. In any case, the system of checks and balances in the US and Europe can ensure that the private does not overwhelm the public, and vice versa. No such mechanisms exist in the Arab countries, however. This also accounts for Arab reactions to the Clinton scandal, which were strictly confined to hypocritical moral judgements.
