Damascus, the next best hope
Opinion, 11 February 2004
Change is in the air in the Middle East. I suspect our forefathers
in the Levant must have felt a similar atmosphere in 1917, when the Ottoman
Empire collapsed, though the region has not known similar vibrations in half a
century of living memory. And for once, the indicators are positive and numerous
enough so that one does not quite know where to start.
In Iraq, the Governing Council is rising to the historic task of leading the
country despite and against the thugs who seek to undermine progress by
dispatching suicide bombers against all categories of Iraqi civilians.
In Saudi Arabia, women are again demonstrating against the driving ban, while
journalists and even members of the royal family talk openly of the
impossibility of maintaining the status quo. The petitions demanding a loosening
up of the Saudi system have become legion.
In Iran, there is an ongoing legislative rebellion against the abuse of
constitutional power by the Council of Guardians, which recently prevented
decent, honest candidates from running for forthcoming elections to Parliament.
Though the council has done this before, it is the first time its actions have
been challenged so forcefully. Once the unacceptable abuse of power ends, it
will usher in an Iran that is virtually a full-fledged democracy.
In Palestine and Israel, despite the ambient gloom, for the first time since the
case in Belgium against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was halted through
direct American interference, Sharon finds himself on the defensive. The only
humane solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict a binational, federal
Israeli-Palestinian state is finding its way into the American and Palestinian
mainstream.
Change is also visible elsewhere. In Sudan there is serious talk, for the first
time in 20 years, of an end to the devastating civil war, although the
dictatorship in Khartoum seeks to undermine progress to remain in power. In
Turkey, the ruling Justice and Development Party is accumulating kudos from both
the US and the European Union on its democratic behavior, demonstrating the
fallacy of the silly prejudice that Islam is somehow incompatible with
democracy.
Here in Lebanon the taboo of the presidential election later this year has
finally been broken thanks to the courage of MP Nayla Mouawad, who has announced
her candidacy. By so doing, she scored a point in favor of a constitutional
alternation of power and against a possible extension of the current
presidential mandate.
And in the United States, the dominant talk of President George W. Bush and
Vice-President Dick Cheney is about democracy in the Middle East and of ensuring
that Middle East democrats become the administration’s privileged partners in
the region.
We should not get carried away, of course; the obstacles remain colossal.
However, the question is not whether democratic yearnings can succeed, but how
one can set priorities to remove these hurdles as quickly as possible. Now that
American leaders have finally responded to the deafening call to put democracy
and human rights at the center of their Middle East policies, where should one
start?
Naturally, each society wishes to be the first on the road to stability through
openness and democracy; but if a choice were to be made on the most promising
place for change in governance after the collapse of Saddam Hussein, it would
have to be Syria, for two reasons: First, what is happening in Damascus is
astonishing, and the democracy petition signed last week by 1,000 people was
remarkable. Moreover, the authorities made no arrests in response to it. On the
contrary, Amnesty International saluted the release last week of over 100 Syrian
political prisoners. Riad Seif, Mamum Homsy and others remain in prison for a
third year, and must surely be released, but there is no reason to think that
the government will not do so if domestic and outside forces keep pushing for
such an outcome.
Second, the Syrian government openly admitted some time ago that military
parity, and therefore a military option, was no longer possible against Israel:
The technological gap is too wide and the US will never let Israel down. This is
a welcome conclusion, as any victory against Israeli oppression of Arab-Israelis
and Palestinians will now be commanded by ethics and not by force much as in
South Africa and Eastern Europe. And ethics in public life, which means
democracy, human rights and the end of oppression, begins at home.
The logic of non-violent change is palpable in Damascus, where one can almost
feel it physically. There is far less quietude in the streets, far less
muttering whenever politics are discussed in public, far fewer suspicious looks.
A few days ago, a lady at a hotel openly expressed annoyance with the security
man checking all visitors’ names. He, in turn, was unusually accommodating, as
if acquiescing in the pointlessness of the three-decade-old exercise.
So let us closely watch Syria, where thanks to the dogged courage of many
hundreds of prominent civilians fear has almost receded into oblivion. The next
step expected from a president who, with his wife, has heightened expectations
of progress is for the release of the last prisoners of conscience and the
formation of a national unity government with leaders of the present peaceful
revolt. Some are of international caliber, such as Riad Seif, Sadeq Jalal al-Azm
and Riad Turk.
Peaceful national unity in Damascus is the next best hope for democracy in the
region. Why not a “man of the year” award for the president who would
successfully oversee such a process? The alternatives are grim, both for him and
for the Middle East.
Chibli Mallat is a lawyer and law professor at St. Joseph’s University in Beirut. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR