What right does the West have to preach to Arabs? [THE NATIONAL]

June 11, 2015

During the Egyptian president’s recent visit to Budapest, his Hungarian counterpart Janos Ader made an interesting statement. He declared that democracy was not for everyone and that westerners ought to recognise this and stop lecturing about it and human rights to non-westerners. Inadvertently, Mr Ader had made a rather profound statement, though one with problematic undertones.

In one sense, he has a point. Is there such a thing as a monolithic form of democracy? Even within the European Union, countries considered to be democracies have variations. Some are constitutional monarchies. Some have an established state religion; in others, that would be anathema. The diversity of democratic experience can be broadened even further if we consider the US, Canada and Australia. Which kind of democracy is meant when some call upon Arabs to embrace it?

More to the point, by what right do westerners make this call? Is there not a type of arrogance involved in this? Are they so certain of their historical development and where it has led them, to the point that it must necessarily be better than the historical outcomes of all others? The Arab world has the right to establish its own reference points for development, governance and fundamental rights.

In considering this line of reasoning, this adage from one of the most famous Arabs of all time, Imam Ali bin Abi Talib, the fourth successor to the Prophet, is pertinent: “A word of truth by which is intended falsehood.” He meant that sometimes, a true word may be spoken, but only to further something that is utterly false.

There is a grain of truth in every argument against western interference in the Arab world’s styles of governance. When, for example, the French republic places restrictions on the wearing of headscarves for observant Muslim women, one ought not to argue that this is automatically a more advanced understanding of the notion of freedom of religion than, say, Iran’s restrictions, which go in the other direction. These matters are contested and as a global village, we haven’t established a common way of judging them.

But make no mistake. Statements like the one made by Mr Ader are seldom meant to promote the autonomy of Arabs, whether as citizens or of their societies. Rather, they are designed, all too often, to provide an escape route to those who would wave the flag of national honour in order to avoid responsibility for abuses. For example, how often in the past decade has the Syrian regime made such arguments, taking recourse in that last refuge of the scoundrel, patriotism?

The reality is that indeed, certain things have become universal – voluntarily so. Certainly, there is a lively debate in academic circles around the truly universal nature of certain human rights instruments, given that the process of writing them was hardly universal. But there are fundamental rights that have been widely accepted and are even enshrined in laws and constitutions across the Arab world.

The real issue is not whether western governments are imposing subjective values upon Arab states. Arab societies can offer counterarguments, one would assume, with sufficient sophistication. The issue is whether or not all Arab states and governments actually adhere to the protection of those fundamental rights that are enshrined in their own national laws or in the supranational agreements that such states committed to upholding. Far too often, too many of them do not.

Several months ago, the British former prime minister Tony Blair publicly stated that he supported democracy in the Arab world but that we had to be “realistic”. Does that mean we should simply draw the following conclusion: “They’re Arabs, after all, so we shouldn’t expect high standards”?

There are people and organisations throughout the Arab world that have worked tirelessly for years to uphold fundamental rights and struggled to bring about a more pluralistic and just political order. They often operate in arenas that are extremely difficult and have few friends to back them. They are not “western agents” in some way, trying to turn their countries into a fake misrepresentation of the West. Rather, they are trying to hold their countries to the standards that their own governments have formally committed to.

Without any illusions about western societies, good friends sometimes have to offer tough love. That means reminding Arab governments of the responsibilities that they have placed upon themselves. If this were not done, we would only entertain the bigotry of low expectations. Worse, it would mean disrespecting the sacrifices of so many who have worked so tirelessly for their own people. In the years to come, many of those people will be described as heroes – we should all hope to be counted as their supporters.

Dr HA Hellyer is an associate fellow in international security Studies at the Royal United Services Institute in London, and the Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC

On Twitter: @hahellyer

Source: The National

Photo Credit: Wikipedia. CC.