Arabs look inward after April 9

Hani Hourani, Political Analyst, Project Syndicates

Across the Arab world, the fall of Baghdad on April 9th is seen as a day of shame, reminiscent of June 5, 1967, when Israel defeated the armies of three Arab countries, conquering the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem in a mere six days.

Arab intellectuals, and indeed the wider Arab public, are now busy trying to analyze and understand the lessons of the Iraqi earthquake. Meanwhile, supporters of the former Ba'athist regime in Iraq and others are now busy defending the same old totalitarian mindset. Their tactic has been to obstruct a clear review of the Iraqi catastrophe by suggesting that any criticism of Saddam's regime is tantamount to supporting the American occupation of Iraq.

For example, Fahd Al-Fanek, a former Ba'ath Party member, is now a columnist for the Jordanian newspaper Al-Ra'i. In April, he wrote that the end of Saddam's hold on power in Iraq "provided the opportunity for the enemies of the regime to shed crocodile tears at democracy and to denounce repression and dictatorship as an indirect gesture welcoming the American occupation." None of the anti-Saddam sentiment, Al-Fanek argued, was "intended to serve the cause of democracy, but to support the American position and justify the American occupation."

Interestingly, such retrospective support for Saddam and his dictatorial regime is now being met with growing indignation in the Arab World, because ordinary Arabs are only now learning of the crimes perpetrated by the Ba'ath Party regime. Apologists for Saddam's rule are now facing some difficult questions.

There is precedent for such soul-searching in the Arab world. In the aftermath of Israel's 1967 victory, Sadeq Jalal Al-Azm, a well-know Syrian intellectual and a professor of philosophy, published a book entitled Self-criticism after the defeat, which sharply criticized many aspects of Arab political culture. Al- Azm's book became a sensation, stimulating a wave of reviews and polemical exchanges.

Back then, the paramount question was: How did a small state like Israel defeat the armies of three Arab countries and occupy vast areas of Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian territory in a few days? This question still echoes through the decades, and the many answers have dwelled not only on military failings, but on broader questions concerning Arab political, economic, cultural, and technological development.

The prevailing response in the 1960's to Israel's triumph was that the Arabs should adapt the guerrilla strategies pursued by the Vietnamese, Chinese, and Cubans. Later on, the Soviet model became popular among nationalist and leftist movements fighting for independence when they seized power in Syria, Iraq, and South Yemen. Demands for democracy, popular participation, and political pluralism were shelved in favor of pan-Arab national slogans urging Arab unity, the liberation of Palestine and opposition to imperialism.

But looking back on the 1970's and 1980's, the socioeconomic failures of the despotic regimes that embodied this worldview are glaringly obvious. Their countries sank deeply into debt, with low rates of growth, endemic corruption, and bloated public sectors. Prisons were overcrowded, and cultural expression was stifled. Unsurprisingly, these regimes viewed the slightest criticism as treason and subversion.

This was the stagnant context in which Iraq embarked on its military expansionism in 1991, aimed at the occupation of Kuwait. Although the Iraqi forces were quickly expelled from Kuwait, Saddam's overwhelming defeat did nothing to undermine his stature in the Arab world. The remnants of Saddam's army were not pursued within Iraq, allowing him to crush the popular insurrection staged in the south, and remain in power. Despite trying to annex an Arab neighbor, Saddam was able to claim the nationalist mantle against the Americans.

Today, the previously unknown crimes committed by Saddam's regime against numberless thousands of Iraqis are being revealed. Around the Arab world, people are comparing the nationalist rhetoric of the regime with the scope of its barbarism. Shame at the price the Iraqi people have paid for the false face of the Baathist regime can be detected everywhere. It is becoming clear that no achievement, regardless of how great it may be, can justify the human cost that the Iraqi people paid over the last four decades.

In the weeks since the overthrow of Saddam's regime, and despite the American occupation, Iraqis are exercising an increasing degree of control over their daily lives. They are choosing local councils, publishing newspapers, and organizing various political and social organizations. The reconstruction of Iraq, which has now begun, will continue.

The echoes of the Iraqi quake are being felt in every Arab capital, including those that put their faith in oil riches to protect them from popular discontent. Demands for political and economic reform are escalating. The winds of change will blow once again through the Middle East, which remains threatened by both religious fundamentalism and foreign pressure. The best alternative to both is a voluntary movement toward democratic openness and political pluralism, enabling citizens across the Arab world to participate in making the future of their countries.

The writer is Director General of Al-Urdun al-Jadid, a research center based in Amman, Jordan.