Only by political education will the Arab world be able to avoid falling into dictatorship, whether religious, secular or any other, writes Ayman El-Amir Entrenched dictatorships die slowly and with great spasms as much as revolutions seize power in a frenzy. They come into conflict as one struggles to survive, using subterfuge and counterrevolutionary tactics, while the other strives to assert itself by revolutionary violence. In the so-called Arab Spring, the revolution is in a tug-of-war between the old and new regimes and even within elements of the revolution itself. Some, like in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Libya, have overthrown the symbols of the old regime but have barely scratched the surface of full-fledged revolutionary change. In Syria, the bitter struggle rages on. It could have been resolved by now if the Syrian National Council had been more united, the big powers more resolved and the UN representative Kofi Anan and his team less determined to prolong his failed mission if only to win some accolades at the cost of thousands of Syrian lives. The revolution in Libya is undermined by chaos and tribal differences. In Yemen, former president Ali Abdallah Saleh and his family are determined to rule behind the scene. In the absence of powerful and independent state institutions these revolutions seem to have fallen in the hands of autocratic decision-makers, if only temporarily. Other candidates for revolutionary change in the Gulf feel the jitters and are frantically building anti-revolutionary defence mechanisms. Some are enhancing security measures; others are making geo-strategic moves like the proposed unity between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. The problem is that old monarchies of the region see the writing on the wall, know that change is contagious, but believe they can weather it and maintain the status quo. Historically, the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution was a turning point in that it established a system of governance hitherto unknown in the world: the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is not that 18th and 19th century monarchies were democratic in their management of state affairs and international relations, but it was generally believed by the masses that they were ordained to rule. The rise of nationalism, the nation-state and organised labour in the 19th century asserted the rights of the masses and paved the way for the collective power of the people, which found formal political expression in the introduction of the Marxism-Leninism doctrine in Russia. As it was later revealed, it was the rule of the oligarchy in the name of the proletariat. The same pattern was established and prevailed in Eastern Europe following World War II and lasted until the late 1980s when the Polish Solidarity movement used collective bargaining to proclaim the rights of workers and the people at large. That became the democracy of the proletariat. Once Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader at the time, assured East European protesters that Soviet tanks would not roll into their capitals if they should assert their demands for genuine democracy, free elections and human rights, the political direction of the region began to change. The downfall of communism liberated forces of democracy around the world, but not necessarily in Russia where a new form of totalitarianism emerged. It also empowered the long-suppressed forces of Islamism and gave them hope to prevail. Unfortunately, the Muslim separatists in Chechnya rushed to challenge the wounded tiger of the dying Soviet empire and were brutally crushed. With the growth of the anti-colonial movement and the support it earned from the former Soviet Union new alliances emerged on the global map among the non-aligned countries and the former superpower. In formulating their political structure, the non-aligned found in the Soviet one party, one strongman system a convenient role model of government. Pseudo-democratic rule rode on the back of the new sense of nationalism and the spirit of anti-colonialism. As it spread in Third World countries, the system provided an ironclad mechanism for state control and absolute power of the "national hero" who came to power on the top of a tank. On the other side of the fence, monarchies perpetuated their medieval system of government by decree, supported by the West as the antidote to the spread of communism. National independence and the emergence of charismatic leaders fired up the masses with slogans and patriotic agendas, but little in the way of building democratic institutions or a prosperous economy. The one-man rule agenda proved unsustainable and the oligarchic monopoly of the wealth spawned corruption, poverty, hate and resentment. Plans to bequeath power on the offspring or the relative constituted the straw that broke the camel's back. The limits of tolerance were also broken for millions who were ruled in the name of the people and for decades got nothing but poverty, unemployment, incarceration, intimidation and suppression of their basic human rights. Years of despair led to rebellion and life itself became cheaper than the agony of sordid living. The promise of independence, of rule by patriotic leaders, of a dreamland of opportunities and of decent standards of living in larger freedom came to nothing. In less than 100 years, the world, particularly developing countries, has passed through colonialism, revolutions, military coups, two world wars, theocratic rule, and ended up at square one, with few differences. Theocratic rule is now being presented as the only credible solution, for theocratic rulers would be God-fearing people who would not cheat or lie, would tolerate corruption or dishonest practice, and create a welfare state. It has proven to be a very attractive agenda for the 60 per cent mass of the impoverished Egyptian people. The long rule of the oligarchy under insidious slogans and the one party system distorted the philosophy of governance and divided people in the Arab world into narrow-interest alliances. In Egypt, the Islamic trend has branched out into at least four sub-groups, with some posing as more tolerant or more puritanical than the others. Al-Qaeda has not shown its hand yet, but it will not be long before it does. The political environment is free, chaotic and tempting. Egypt, like other emancipated Arab countries, is still groping for its own form of democracy. A president is being elected before a permanent constitution is adopted. Political forces are divided and the crushing problems of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, corruption and poor medical care are overwhelming. For any single political force or religious sect to rush to seize power would be disastrous. The country still needs a breathing spell to build not only democratic institutions to replace the Mubarak autocracy but to inculcate the culture that would underpin them. The next four years will be more of a transitional period than a closing chapter. So, for the Muslim Brotherhood or any other religious group to seek to dominate state institutions will not only be counter but will be exclusionary and a new form of dictatorship. Religious parties build loyalty on the basis of religious indoctrination that seeks to convince the populace at large that they are the purveyors of the edicts of God. However, these claims will wear thin under the exigencies of political manoeuvring. What Egyptians need most, beyond the basic necessities of life, is political education that would help them transcend religious indoctrination, tribal affiliation, familial obligation and favouritism. That is more easily said than done; but, after all, it is a long process of education. It is the ultimate hope that Egypt and other liberated Arab countries have. The writer is former corespondent of Al-Ahram in Washington, DC, and former director of the UN Radio and Television in New York.
