The Arab and the Muslim worlds are engaged in a process of deep change that will fundamentally alter the political and social order in countries engaged in this enterprise. Change came quickly in two countries — Tunisia and Egypt. It is coming much more slowly and with much bloodshed in Yemen, Libya and Syria. It appears to have been suppressed in Bahrain. The Arab monarchies have been largely saved since their rulers have some legitimacy in the eyes of their citizens. They are also attempting to reform.
Though less obvious, it is certainly the case that the Arab Spring has had an impact on three non-Arab Muslim countries that share many borders with the Arab world or are not too distant from it. In both Turkey and Pakistan democracy has begun to take root. That is happening because the people want it. In both countries, the military establishment is on the back foot, with people looking at the Arab street and learning from it. The people there now strongly believe that they, and not the men in uniform, will define their aspirations. Afghanistan may also go in that direction but even if it does, progress will be much slower.
The situation in two other Muslim countries, one Arab and the other non-Arab, is more complicated. In spite of a huge expenditure and spilling of a great deal of American blood, Iraq is nowhere near achieving stability. The Americans have been in the country for more than eight years but the situation remains unstable and unpredictable. Iran has been under American pressure for decades but it has yet to give up on its nuclear designs and is not interested in attempting to join the international community of nations.
The Arab Spring has taken hold of a number of societies in this part of the world, succeeding in some and making slower progress in others. Revolutions can take unexpected turns and social change is always slow in traditional societies. Even then it is possible to make some predictions about what we may see during this period of transition while new institutions are being put in place, new processes for managing the affairs of the state are being developed, and new mechanisms are being crafted that would keep the rulers and the ruled engaged with one another.
Looking at the way the movement has developed on the street as well as in the back rooms where negotiations are taking place to create a new governing order, it is possible to discern a few trends that will shape and define this part of the world for years to come. All of these will affect one another; taken together, they will produce a world that will bear little resemblance to the one that existed before December 2010 when a desperate young man in Tunisia, insulted by a policewoman, set himself on fire. Revolution is a much used and abused word, but it can be applied to the enormous changes that are taking place in this important part of the globe.
The changes that are taking shape as a result of the Arab Spring cover a fine front. One of the most important of these is the downgrading of the military. The revolutions succeeded in those countries where the men in uniform decided that it would be imprudent to challenge the street. Accepting that those who turned up on the streets and in the squares of Tunis and Cairo were giving vent to frustration accumulated over many decades, the Tunisian and Egyptian armed forces decided to stay in their barracks. The street took this as an indication of neutrality, and later an acceptance of the change that was being demanded. This message from the street has been read in Ankara and Islamabad-Rawalpindi. A politically strong government in Turkey and a politically weak administration in Pakistan have managed to keep their militaries out of government affairs — decisively so in the case of the former, somewhat less in the case of the latter. There are signs in Pakistan that even in the area of security policy, military is now also listening and not always dictating.
Loss of some power and prestige by the military in the affected countries has produced another important change. The West found the military heads of state easier to deal with and influence than the messy democracies in a few countries where the latter existed. Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Ayub Khan, Zia ul Haq and Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan were relatively easy partners for Washington, London and other western capitals than would have been the case if these countries were led by people’s representatives. Those who emerge leaders in the countries through which these revolutions are proceeding will have to go with public opinion. And public opinion may not always support what the West seeks from these countries. This important change will be seen in all these countries. Undoubtedly, they will be more independent of American influence in world affairs. This will have consequences for America and the rest of the West in shaping policies with respect to Israel, oil, trade, and financial flows.
It is also likely that long-enduring regimes, such as those in many Arab countries, will become the exception rather than the norm. As institutional politics and democracy take hold in these countries, regime change will take place on the basis of established rules and principles. This is not to say that no attempts will be made to re-establish authoritarian orders that were in place in these countries for so long. Revolutions don’t follow a linear approach as they evolve and those now underway will not be any different. There is no doubt that 2011 will go down in history as the year that changed the world.
The author is a former finance minister of Pakistan
