Popular Will Guarantees Arab Rights

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

There are people who fear the future because of the Arab popular movement in a number of Arab countries, for several reasons: some say that America and the West in general are manufacturing these revolutions; some believe that chaos will creep into the countries witnessing revolutions; and others think that everything happening is merely a distraction for the people, and that in the end nothing will change in the Arab world. All these fears are legitimate, especially since Arabs have always been disappointed by events, and their aspirations have in the end found nothing but frustration and regret over what has passed.

There is clear foreign intervention in the Arab countries witnessing popular movement, and in those that are not. Foreign intervention has been a constant factor over the long years, and it is now present with the aim of preserving the stability of states that are not witnessing movement, or are witnessing weak movement, since stability preserves foreign interests, and with the aim of securing foreign interests as much as possible in places where change is taking place. America and the European states poke their noses into every Arab state, and speak as though they were the ones giving orders, the ones with the final say in shaping the political situation.

Free Will Is the Opposite of Foreign Interests

The problem is not the foreigner who wants to entrench his interests, but rather the one who opens his door to others to intervene and exploit the wealth. Every state seeks its own interests, and it will not close doors that are open before it for achieving these interests. In this world, only aberrant states leave their doors open in order to hold fast to the ethics of non-intervention and non-exploitation. States are like a predator lying in wait for opportunities to pounce on its prey, and you will find no mercy in it once it is able to strike. Some states may sometimes appear kind-hearted toward their prey, but sweet talk soon evaporates.

The ability of states to intervene in the affairs of others is tied to the will of that other, and is inversely proportional to that will. Peoples with firm will do not open room for foreign states to intervene in their affairs, while half-dead peoples with a collapsing will do not in fact possess the ability to protect themselves. The more the will of peoples grows cohesive and vigorous, the more foreign intervention recedes; the more that will collapses, the more comfortably foreign intervention roams free.

The Arabs, a Playground for Foreign Intervention

The Arabs have remained, in the modern era, a playground for foreign intervention for multiple reasons, foremost among them the absence of self-awareness, and the absence of a clear nationalist or Islamic vision. Awareness could not simply spring up all at once; rather, the years of searching for self were heavy and long. Among Arab intellectuals and politicians there were pioneers who were trailblazers in spreading awareness and laying the foundations for an Arab renaissance, and they made many sacrifices for the sake of their mission, but the accumulation remained slow and insufficient to spark a mass movement for change.

The foreigner found the doors of the Arabs open for exploitation, domination, and the theft of will, and he has remained crouched upon our chests all these long years. Arab rulers emerged who were aware of this truth and tried to bring change, such as Gamal Abdel Nasser, Abd al-Karim Qasim, and Talal bin al-Hussein, but the foreigner’s stick was thick and ever ready, and it struck down the hopes that people had placed in these pioneers.

And in truth, the pioneers of change among these leaders also failed in method: they imagined that mere emotional or reactive agitation would carry the Arabs to a qualitative leap and lead to the masses’ victory over foreign domination. These men did not act with a scientific mindset; they did not lay out a clear program carrying a lucid vision to lead the people toward change, and they relied essentially on their own influential personalities, their own personal ideas, and the ideas of the small handful around them. They had a clear affiliation to their nation, but their scientific and intellectual capacities fell short of the level required to achieve a mass awakening. Perhaps Mr. Hassan Nasrallah is an exception to this state of affairs, given that he operates with a clear practical methodology and scientific, logical thinking.

This applies to Arab regimes witnessing popular movement, such as Libya and Syria, just as it applied to Egypt and Tunisia. The leader imagined that his fiery speeches were enough to rally energies and awaken a genuine, conscious popular will, and so he fell into the trap of his own misdeeds, having harbored illusions about their suitability for the continuation of his rule. People applauded, in the early days, for regimes that classified themselves as revolutionary, but their hopes began to be dashed as corruption, injustice, oppression, and enslavement spread, and people no longer saw “revolutionary” as fundamentally different from “reactionary.” In this way, these Arab regimes themselves opened the door to a popular movement that would topple the political order, and to popular acceptance — even if limited — of foreign intervention to change conditions.

Of course, I do not here exempt the states that do not classify themselves as revolutionary, because they are fundamentally already a playground for the foreigner, and their political regimes are nothing but genuine tools in the foreigner’s hand.

The upshot is that foreign influence in the Arab countries has remained standing and ongoing, and the foreigner’s stick has found its way to the regimes that reject this intervention — a stick that met no popular confrontation because the masses were either absent or dissatisfied with the ruling regime. And where confrontation did occur, as in Iraq, it came about only after the regime had already fallen, and its champions remained torn and divided.

A New Historical Stage

Several Arab regions witnessed revolutionary movements in confrontation with colonialism and in pursuit of independence, but mass movement against despotic regimes remained local, transient, and occurring at widely spaced intervals, as happened in Egypt over the price of bread, and in Ma’an, Jordan. The situation now is different, in that the Arab world is passing through a new historical stage entirely unlike the previous stages of the modern era. Vast masses are pouring into the streets, rejecting all these burdens, cares, and pains that the Arab regimes have piled onto their peoples. Perhaps these masses do not carry a clear compass toward the future, but they are venting from within themselves cares that have turned the life of the Arab into a hell made by his own kinsmen. This explains some of the confusion now occurring in certain Arab mass movements. It is not surprising, for the history of nations bears witness to the haziness that characterizes the crossing toward the future.

The new historical stage does not ripen overnight; its ripening requires long periods of time, owing to multiple subjective and objective, internal and external factors. There are stable states that often suffer the pains of transition from one law to another, or from one economic program to another — so how much more so for a nation aspiring to a new historical stage, in divorce from a repugnant stage of injustice, enslavement, and oppression stemming from both internal and external sources?

Peoples Bring Themselves Victory

There are no treacherous peoples, only treacherous individuals, or regimes, or leaders. There are peoples who are misled, or oppressed, or ignorant, or wronged, and peoples whose awareness has been obscured, who do not know precisely their rights and duties, nor the rights and duties of those managing their affairs. But these peoples rise up in the end, owing to the dialectical relationship between injustice, the stirring of feelings, and the emergence of awareness. The fool does not remain a fool forever, nor the wronged submissive forever, nor the misled ignorant forever. The history of peoples bears witness, in the end, to popular emergence, the breaking of chains, and the making of new history.

The Arab peoples are no exception to other peoples who rose up and imposed change, and in the end they will not fail themselves. The compass of the Arab peoples is not entirely clear, and opinions and viewpoints about the future are numerous, varied, and sometimes conflicting, which causes some chaos and discord among the revolutionaries and breeds a feeling of frustration, but this is not unique to the Arab revolutions. There is also foreign intervention aimed at preserving foreign interests, and we should not expect foreigners to remain outside the arenas of action and influence.

The Arab peoples may go somewhat astray, and may be affected by the sweet talk issuing from foreign quarters, but their presence in the street now, and their expression of free will, guarantees overcoming the obstacles facing their aspirations — gradually, however. And just as the peoples of the earth who rose up did not fail themselves, and did not bend their will to others, so too will the Arab peoples remain true to themselves despite some of the wandering that may occur. But the emergence of the popular will will, in the end, inevitably lead to the correction of conditions, however far they may have strayed from the righteous path that serves the people and the nation. That is to say, will is a safety valve that prevents the continuation of error, and confronts deception and the misjudging of matters, or their inaccurate assessment.

The Arab peoples used in the past to applaud, glorify, and place their trust in those unworthy of trust, and so rights were lost and honor and homelands were violated. But now the situation has completely reversed, and the peoples have decided to die for the sake of living. Is there any comparison between the age of submission and foolishness and the age of awareness and determination for freedom and independence?

America, the Great Loser

Among Arab thinkers and intellectuals there are those who believe that America is toying with the Arab peoples, working to replace failed rulers who served its interests with cleverer rulers who serve its interests just as well. This used to happen in the era of military coups. Now there is a popular will that constitutes a decisive factor in the historical transition from one stage to another. America’s relationship with Arab rulers is no longer conducted behind the scenes; it has become a relationship with Arab leaders watched over by the masses, who have their say in matters — or at least in a great many of them. And this applies to the Zionist entity as well.

America has always built distorted relationships with the Arabs through rulers who preferred their own private interests over the interests of the nation, and it provided them with every kind of support to keep them in power. Now, however, it is fully aware that what was will no longer be. It is trying to keep the past alive into the future, but the will of the peoples is no longer in storage, nor does the past still cling to the masses.

The people of Egypt affirm that the history of a nation is made by its own children, and that patience with humiliation is a trait of regimes, not of peoples. Whoever thought peoples were less patriotic than their rulers must revisit the history of nations. Whichever ruler among the nations grew despotic lost his battles, both internal and external, and the peoples paid the price; and whoever trusted his people and believed in their freedom triumphed together with his people, and they achieved their hopes and aspirations. The ruler is patriotic through his free people, and he is defeated through his oppressed people.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “الإرادة الشعبية ضمان الحقوق العربية” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.