In the Octagon conference at Quebec in September 1944 (where Roosevelt and Churchill met and took the decision to advance against Germany on two western fronts instead of making a concerted drive on Berlin, which was criticized in the post-war period because it allowed the Soviet Army to take possession of the German capital), Winston Churchill, prime minister and “hero” of Great Britain, expostulated to US president Theodore Roosevelt: “What do you want me to do? Stand up and beg like Fala (the president’s dog)?”
At Quebec, Churchill was trying to preserve the position of the British Empire in the post-war world. He knew that the United States had “other plans” about the fate of the empire. But when he realized that Roosevelt wasn’t about to subordinate America’s interests and ambitions to his emotional admonitions about the common fate of the two Anglo-Saxon cousins, he packed his bags, said goodbye to Fala, and left.
In the Middle East, many people were reminded of this famous exchange as they witnessed what has been happening to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in the days after Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and US President George W. Bush agreed to “reform” the Palestinian Authority.
For Arafat is also fighting to preserve his “empire” (the PA) in the post-“war on terror” world. Like Churchill before him, Arafat too has to beg the American president’s forgiveness.
Arafat has taken initial steps on the reform course he has promised under international pressure, announcing a Cabinet shake-up that shrank his Cabinet from 31 to 21 ministers.
But the next steps won’t be as easy.
He is required to become an emperor without an empire, a British-style monarch with a throne but no power, or a caliph who claims divine authority, but lacks temporal clout.
For Arafat, this will be like taking poison. The American-Israeli reforms envisage merging his 12 different security services into one force. This will deprive the Palestinian leader of the ability to play one security agency against another in order to maintain his supremacy.
The possible appointment of a Palestinian prime minister in future reform steps will further weaken his power, as will the initiation of a constitution. Add such measures as the separation of powers and putting the PA under Arab-American (and, by extension, Israeli) supervision, and it becomes easy to see why Arafat will see reform as a death sentence carried out by installments.
Some might see these as positive developments. After all, what could be better than building a democratic Palestinian entity that can become a model for all other Arab tyrannies? Bush’s demands for a Palestinian constitution, democracy, the rule of law, transparency and accountability are the same goals Arab peoples (who have long complained of an alliance between Western democracies and Arab dictatorships) have aspired to for many years.
While such developments seem positive, they will only be skin deep. All that glitters is not gold; there is a big difference between democratic propaganda and genuine democracy.
First of all, everyone knows that Sharon is not exactly jumping for joy at the prospect of a Palestinian democracy that would come to rival Israel’s claim of being the only democracy in the Middle East.
Secondly, everyone knows that Israel isn’t really interested in overthrowing Arafat because he is an overbearing tyrant. What Israel wants is to replace him with a number of smaller tribal tyrants allied to Shin Bet and Mossad.
Finally, very few people are ignorant of the fact that the Palestinian people (and all Arab peoples) will not see the American-Israeli “reforms” in Palestine as being reforms at all; they will view such measures as a continuation of the war by other means, to end the intifada and prolong Israel’s colonial occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
This, in a nutshell, summarizes the real roots of the chronic crisis (or curse) that has befallen democracy in the Arab world. This crisis is not due to feelings of persecution that have pervaded the Arab world for the last 200 years: it is a fact.
In the early 19th century, the pan-Arab nation was searching for the gentle breeze of liberty to help it extract itself from the stagnation it was suffering under. What it got instead was a hurricane: the Napoleonic military invasion of Egypt.
In the mid-1800s, the shoots of modernization and democracy were just coming into bloom in Egypt and other Arab countries. Mohammed Ali Pasha’s program of modernization was progressing smoothly when another storm broke. European colonialism attacked the region, suffocating the forces of rationality and liberalism to the advantage of fundamentalist extremism and/or romantic undemocratic nationalism.
The same story was repeated in the 20th century: tyrannical dictatorships ruling from above in the name of “emergency rule,” and extremist organizations exercising influence from below in the name of “liberating the nation.” And all this under the direct supervision and stewardship of the Western powers that dominated the entire region.
This equation shone as bright as day in the recent summits at Beirut and Sharm el-Sheikh.
All Arab totalitarian regimes without exception have over the last 30 years lost all their claims to legitimacy: they failed economically, politically, and ideologically.
Yet nevertheless, Arab leaders still have the temerity to pretend that they have inarguable authority. Why? Because they have been lucky, while their people have not.
Arab peoples have an unfortunate tendency to forget (or disregard) their rights to democracy, human rights and a decent existence so long as the issue concerns the Palestinian tragedy. Crafty Arab leaders know this, and thus do all in their power not to let Palestine fall off their political radar screens ­ without, of course, doing anything to help the Palestinians themselves.
This peculiar dynamic has over the last 80 years played the role of midwife at whose hands were born all sorts of Arab tyrannies.
This point was picked up early on by prominent Moroccan liberal writer Abdullah Laroui.
In his book, The Arabs and Historical Thought, Laroui wrote: “The Palestinian issue strengthened the traditionalist current in the Arab world ideologically and politically. Political and economic reforms were not undertaken in opposition to traditionalist thought, but rather in harmony with it. In fact, in some cases, these reforms were carried out in its name. In all cases, traditionalist thought was preserved and strengthened. That was how the existence and growth of Israel was exploited as evidence that modern science and religious nationalism could in fact coexist, and that modern science had nothing to do with modern democracy, historical thought, and a secular system of government.”
In Arab society at large, liberal and democratic movements were seen to shrink and regress with the progress of the struggle in Palestine. Arab intellectuals gravitated toward the romantic, anarchist, or fundamentalist camps.
It was this that created the present dichotomy in the Arab world, where tyrants control the state, while fundamentalists control society. Despite the fact that this dichotomy has frequently led to the outbreak of civil war, both protagonists have always been happy to know that democracy (and democrats) have been crushed between the two extremes.
How can the Arab peoples demand their democratic rights under circumstances such as these? Arab regimes are extremely happy to have extremist fundamentalists as their only opponents; they can then don the cloaks of “moderation” and bask in the adulation of the West. At the same time, extremist fundamentalist movements flourish, increasing their “legitimacy,” and, by extension, that of the totalitarian regimes they oppose.
But is there a way out of this vicious circle?
Indeed. In fact, there are two ways out instead of only one.
The first is in the hands of the Arab peoples, whose elites are responsible for rescuing them from the “priority trap” set for them by their regimes. A new set of priorities must be devised, in which the just demands of the Palestinian people are nurtured together with those of the Arab peoples for democracy, liberty, human rights and scientific and technological development.
The second way out is through the establishment of a genuine, democratic and viable Palestinian state under international (not Israeli) supervision.
If these two things are achieved, Arabs will no longer be reminded of Churchill and Fala whenever they read, hear, and see what is going on in the Middle East.

Saad Mehio is a Lebanese journalist and writer. He wrote this commentary for The Daily Star

Copyright © The Daily Star