The tales of three unstable states expose the tender underbelly of the inheritors of the Pan-Arab dream, writes Gamal Nkrumah Sudan is not merely one of the many Arab blackspots. Indeed, the country is currently coming to grips with the stark truism that it is not exclusively Arab. It is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation in the heart of the African continent. However, it is suffering from a quintessentially Arab malaise. It is also conceding, no matter how perplexing, that the enjoyment of full citizenship rights be guaranteed to all Sudanese -- Arab and non-Arab. Iraq, too, has a non-Arab president. The crux of the matter is that Sudan and other Arab League member states are grappling with becoming working democracies, whatever that actually means in practice. Sudan stands on the threshold of transition. And, so do Iraq and Lebanon. The process of political fermentation is never smooth and easy. There are those who point accusing fingers at the past. Others see militant Islamists as the main obstacle to democratisation. There is furious speculation about the parties that spark the political crises. Foreign intervention, regional and international, has cast a pall over the entire democratisation process. The underdogs are in the ascendant. They stormed Om Durman, and threatened the very portals of Khartoum. They usurped control over the streets of Beirut, and held sway over Basra. Which other Arab bastion would they wrest control of next? Getting rid of a bad name is difficult, as the Baathists know all too well. There are those who deride Lebanon's Hizbullah, Palestine's Hamas and Iraq's Sadrists as messianic apocalyptic cults, pawns in the pay of regional powers with hidden agendas, fighting wars by proxy. The succinct answer to these hypotheses is that the underlying tensions are basically battles over which way the nascent democracies of the region will go. Secular suspicions of Islamists sparked the first fusillades in this battle. The malignant presence of Israel in the heart of the region prompted an ostensibly dangerous slide towards Islamist militancy. Small wonder, then, that tensions have reached a boiling point during celebrations marking the 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel. So what next? Religion in politics is nothing new. What is new is the poignant audacity with which today's underdogs now stake their claims. The upshot is that the phenomenon asserts the right of the underprivileged, the politically disfranchised and socially alienated to participate more fully in the decision-making process. Nevertheless, the pitfalls of this approach have become evident in the past few days: Beirut and Om Durman. Some say that the West could do more to foster fledgling democracies in the Arab world. Unhappily, there are few real signs of such an approach from Washington. What can the West, especially the US, teach people in this part of the world about justice? Behind the walled privacy of the Arab elites, those who roam the corridors of power cannot afford to ignore the seething masses. Poor people have high birth rates. Food and fuel prices are spiralling out of control. The now much diminished prospects of a smooth transition to democracy appear to be giving way to a more violent future. In the current bloodbaths, the US has committed two errors. First, it has masqueraded as the champion of democracy and upholder of human rights at a time that many question its real motives. Washington has been discredited by its double standards. Second, it has hidden the truth about events in Iraq and the views of Iraqis. But how long can it do so? The Arab world, too, should stop hiding behind the crucible of Israel. The danger of this approach is that it might get them nowhere. Yet it is hardly tenable at this crucial historical juncture to suggest that Pan-Arabism is a lost cause. The grand old man of Arabic letters, Mahmoud Darwish, entitled one of his poems "I am Not Mine". This should give pause to those who still insist on pursuing the Pan-Arab dream. Indeed, this could be said of all Arabs today, lost in the current political No Man's Land. The Arab world has moved on a bit since the days of Gamal Abdel-Nasser. Arab state institutions have been weakened alarmingly. For public consumption, many speak of a greater role for civil society. Luring the Arab world down the same road as America. But that may have to await the results of the US presidential elections and long into the future into Alice's Never Never Land. Those who are baying for the blood of secularist Arab governments should also think twice. Many different answers have been proffered during the pause for reflection on the momentous events of this week as the world commemorates the 60th anniversary of the Nakba. In short, any major institutional change is now fraught with difficulty. Psychopaths are on the warpath. It must be stated plainly that most of those who claim to speak on behalf of the underdog, those who flex their muscles in Arab capitals with confidence, are Islamist in orientation -- Lebanon's Hizbullah, Sudan's Justice and Equality Movement, not to mention Somalia's Council of Islamic Courts. Worryingly bellicose, that would pit them against secularist forces. If seasoned politicians have a special insight into the souls of their compatriots, they ought to be able to walk the tightrope between the secular and Islamist extremes. Caveat emptor : the passing of the Pan-Arab ideal has not been replaced by an equally compelling ideology. Lebanon, Iraq and Sudan: these tales of three failed states speak volumes for the sorry state of democracy in the Arab world. (see pp.4-7)
