By Peter Townson
The Doha Debates audience last night rejected the motion that “This House believes Dubai is a bad idea” with a vote of 62% to 38%, indicating that despite the heavily publicised economic problems the country is going through, people here still believe that the ideology behind Dubai’s growth was not flawed.
Speaking for the motion first was British journalist, Sir Simon Jenkins, who made clear that his interest was not in commenting on political issues, but rather examining Dubai’s growth and development.
He argued that without restrictions on capitalism, “it will all end in tears.” He pointed to a number of historical cities, built upon the dreams of ambitious rulers, which came crashing down amidst numerous social issues.
He said that he believed Dubai would live, “but the idea will die,” and that it would become a thriving refugee centre in the future.
He was followed by economist Nasser bin Ghaith, who argued that Dubai needed to be considered in two stages; pre-2003 and post-2003. He argued that post-2003 a number of things had gone wrong, but claimed that this did not mean that the idea behind Dubai was a mistaken one.
“Dubai is capitalism at its best, and if we say Dubai is a bad idea we are saying that capitalism, a free market, market integration and globalisation are all bad ideas,” he argued.
Ghaith also claimed that Dubai had been “unfairly treated” by the media, which has been quick to react negatively to its economic difficulties.
Sharla Musabih was next to speak for the motion, and she focused on the problems of integration that have resulted from the rapid development in Dubai.
A humanitarian worker who has been in exile for the past year and a half, Musabih expressed her dissatisfaction at the lack of transparency in governmental organisations in Dubai, while arguing that the state had not done enough to protect the rights of its own citizens.
She claimed that government schools were inadequate, and argued that Emirati nationals had lost many of the benefits and privileges they once enjoyed as a result of the great influx of expatriates who now inhabit Dubai, claiming that the country had been mismanaged.
Emirati businessman, Mishal Hamed Kanoo expressed his displeasure at the motion, saying “I am offended by this very idea – how can you judge an entire city by a single blip?”
“Dubai offers a place for the best and brightest to grow –and not just nationals,” he claimed, adding “Dubai is open to both companies and individuals from all over the world.”
He described Dubai as a “beacon of prosperity” in the Arab world, and said that every Arab would say that they would want to be there if they could because of the possibilities the city represents.
The opposition did speak well, but perhaps one of the biggest problems with the proposition’s argument was their inability to offer a clear reason for judging Dubai differently from other cities.
Although Jenkins attempted to explain that Dubai had chosen to go about its development in a manner different from other Gulf countries, it seemed that the audience were not willing to accept this distinction and saw his arguments as an affront to other states in the region.
Indeed this motion was a particularly controversial one, and Doha Debates chairman Tim Sebastian pointed out that a number of potential participants and media outlets had withdrawn their commitment to the discussion, suggesting that this was as a result of fear and intimidation in Dubai.
The issue was sensitive precisely because of how a negative vote may be seen to reflect on Qatar, but as Jenkins tried to point out, the investment atmospheres have been quite different in both countries.
As it was, the opposition managed to speak convincingly about the idea behind Dubai, despite being barraged with questions about migrant workers and the current economic climate, and their claims that there is nothing bad about a country “wanting the best for their citizens,” may just have persuaded a few previously undecided voters.
But perhaps some audience members may have been left a little perturbed by the ease with which the issue of environmental awareness was batted away by the opposition, despite their city’s carbon footprint. |
