CAIRO – What do Arab leaders say when they are sworn in to take office? They swear to work for the best interests of the people and to protect the country's security and safety, don't they? If this is the case, why have many Arab rulers broken their oath and worked for their own personal welfare at the cost of that of the public's interests and subjected their countries to division, civil war and the intervention of foreign forces? These are some of the questions that come to one's mind while contemplating the events in Arab countries in which the people are uprising to change their ruling regimes. Regardless of the way that they are brought to power, rulers are supposed to be at the service of the public and their remaining in office is condition- al on the will of citizens. It is well known that many rulers in the Third World reach rule and remain in office (until death) by fraudulent means. However, none of them admit this fact, but continue living the lie of being chosen and supported by the majority of citizens. It seems that most of such dictators manage to remain in power through their much-dreaded security agencies and the corrupt entourage defending their presence as much as their personal interests. With time, some people might actually believe the lie especially when leading democratic countries have closed their eyes to these dictator- ships as long as they continue to serve these major powers' interests in the region. Ironically, some of those autocrats believe this fallacy themselves and consider their remaining in power a national duty allegedly to protect the country from foreign conspiracies or domination by terrorist groups. This reminds one of the famous words of former president Hosni Mubarak uttered to ensure his remain- ing in office, despite the growing calls for change, when he stated that he would remain in office ‘as long as my heart is beating'. He seemed to believe deep down that his departure would mean abandoning Egypt to chaos and the rule of extremist Islamists. All this could be understood and acceptable in the man's mind. However, seeing millions of Egyptians taking to the streets in most governorates of the nation seeking to end his rule should have changed his conviction over his actual clout in the street. He should have realised that the majority of people wanted him to step down. He did not make this move until he came under unprecedented public pressure and that of the Army after the latter refused to use force against protesters. Not all Arab peoples have enjoyed the same fortune of their armed forces taking their side against their rulers and understanding their role of defending the country. This role means defending the nation against any threat and not subjecting the people to death, division or civil war and even foreign intervention, as is the case in Libya. This week's heavy shelling of Tripoli by NATO has not convinced the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi to surrender. Instead, he has vowed to fight to the end. Ironically, with these ominous words, Gaddafi is not addressing NATO but the revolutionary rebels who have managed to control the east of Libya, the western port of Misrata and the range of mountains near the border with Tunisia. In face of civil demonstrations requesting a change in Libya, the arrogant Gaddafi resorted to the use of force and threatened to bring the country to a civil war with the aim of keeping power. What Gaddafi has done with Libya is a crime that has made the international community take the decision of forcibly intervening to save the Libyans from the massacres by Gaddafi forces of civilians and soldiers refusing orders to shoot at unarmed citizens. This is exactly what Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh continued to do in his homeland when he refused to step down to preserve the country's unity. Instead he kept threatening that his quitting would mean domination of al-Qaeda members over the country's rule. Although most Yemeni males have weapons as one of their tribal traditions, the wise civilians continued to go down onto street for peaceful potential protests, an approach that has so far saved the country from potential division and civil war. Astonishingly, Saleh who was forced to leave Yemen for Saudi Arabia to be treated for the serious injuries he received, when his palace was subjected to heavy shelling, he has continued his tenacious hold on power and refused to announce his resignation making his country's future look increasingly uncertain. Though his temporary departure has eased turmoil in the country, there is still fear of conflict over authority by different tribes, no small thanks to his refusal to sign the Gulf Co-operation Council's brokered initiative of power transfer to an elected government. Conditions in Syria are no difference, except that the long-oppressed people could no longer maintain the peacefulness of their demonstrations against the excessive use of force against them and their towns. Accordingly, they had to counter attack the forces affiliated to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Some members of the army started to turn against the ruler and take the side of the revolutionaries. This could end Syria becoming another Libya, especially given the European trend of getting a UN resolution incriminating the acts of al-Assad's regime. In this case, it would make one wonder if this would mean the start of direct- ing foreign forces against Syria. For the region's stability, let's hope that different powers in Libya, Yemen and Syria would resort to wisdom and unite to end tyrannical regimes, so as to preserve the unity of their countries and offer their nations a real chance of having democratic rule. At the same time, they should learn the lesson of never letting a ruler turn into a dictator and keep reminding them of the oath they made on taking office and, if possible, including an article at the constitution penalising a ruler that violates the swearing-in oath.
