Arabs debate political reforms

Still, some regional analysts argue that external and domestic pressures work in tandem to spur reluctant Arab governments to embark on reform programs.

"These two trends overlap with each other," says Shafeeq Ghabra, president of the American University of Kuwait. "They will succeed in some places and may collapse and cause strife and anarchy in other places."

The dilemma for Arab regimes mulling reform is that the greater the move toward democracy the greater the risk of losing power.

The pan-Arab framework for reform under discussion by Arab leaders does not include a plan of action for individual countries. The speed and manner of reform will be left to each country to decide.

Jordan, says Mr. Muasher, has tailored specific reform policies to the specific circumstances of the country.

"What we do in Jordan could not expect to be replicated in other Arab countries," he says. "Each country has to decide on its pace depending on its conditions."

And that pace is usually slow. Most governments that have pledged reforms have done so tentatively and with a demonstrated readiness to reverse the process if it appears to be gaining an uncontrollable momentum of its own.

Syria, for example, flirted with loosening political restrictions shortly after Bashar al-Assad took office in 2000. But political discussion forums were soon closed down, reformists arrested, and today the emphasis is on reforming the civil administration first.

Grappling with its own homegrown terrorism, Saudi Arabia has begun toying with reform, liberalizing its educational curricula and promising municipal elections for the first time. But some Saudi liberals have been arrested, and critical newspaper columnists have lost their jobs, underlining the limits the country's rulers are willing to accept.

Michael Young, opinion editor of Beirut's English language Daily Star newspaper, argues that Arab governments ultimately are only concerned with staying in power and are incapable of ushering in genuine reforms.

Instead, Mr Young advocates a tougher approach, using the implicit threat of US troops in Iraq to coerce unwilling Arab regimes to hasten the process of internal reform.

"This notion of the piecemeal domestically-generated reform to me is nonsense," he says. "It is a useful period to use the presence of American forces and use the message of Iraq to goad Arab regimes into changing. It's a combination of outside pressure, domestic pressure and eventually a threat of force."

But the hesitancy of Arab regimes is not the only obstacle on the path to full democratic reforms. The festering Arab-Israeli conflict also exacts a toll. Some governments say reforms are impossible while Israel remains a threat.

Critics argue that this is merely an excuse to put off unwelcome changes. Nonetheless, the impact of Israeli-Palestinian violence has a powerful resonance with ordinary Arabs. The failure to resolve the conflict has fueled extremism and hardened anti-Western attitudes making reform much riskier for some regimes.

"You can't be having war in one place [in the Middle East] and peace in another place," Ghabra says.

Page: 1 | 2