 |
| Chairman Tim Sebastian is flanked by the proposition, Anouar Boukhars and Nadim Houry, and the opposition, Ahmed Ali al-Mukhaini and Jane Kinninmont as they debate the futility, or lack thereof, of government resistance to the ‘Arab Spring |
An audience at the final Doha Debates of the current series, resoundingly carried the motion that ‘This House believes resistance to the Arab Spring is futile,’ by 73% to 27% last night, firmly expressing their belief that people power will lead to further government reforms and political transformation in the region.
Focused on the burning issues surrounding the ongoing regional revolutions, the evening provided an interesting discussion of how people feel current events might unfold.??
Supporting the motion, Professor of International Relations at McDaniel College, Anouar Boukhars said that the wave of protest throughout the region has been inspired by more than simply economic injustice.
“The philosophy behind the revolutions is political legitimacy and authority,” said Boukhars, adding “they are not just about economic problems -- people cannot be bought off because governments are not addressing the real concerns.”
“You can buy some time, but you cannot oppress 70% of your people for long,” said Boukhars, referring to Bahrain’s efforts to stem the tide of revolution.
At the other end of the spectrum, opposition panelist, independent researcher, Ahmed Ali al-Mukhaini said that although long term change may occur in the region, governments have the tools to prevent the revolutions having significant impact in the short term. ?
He suggested that social networking and popular protest are not enough to bring about change.
“They can get people onto the streets, but that is not enough,”? he argued, suggesting that rich governments in the region will help to “make the Arab Spring futile.”?
He said Gulf countries will fund countries in the region to ensure that they stop the spread of revolution by meeting economic needs in the short to medium term.
Although the opposition suggested that governments are curbing the momentum of certain revolutions, they admitted that change will come in the long term, if people are organised and have a strategic plan about how to achieve their aims.?
But resistance in Libya has remained strong, and they suggested that the difference with this revolution has only come about as a result of foreign intervention.“If it were not for Europe and the US recognising the legitimacy of the Libyan National Transitional Council, then this would not have been any different to years of failed protests,” said al-Mukhaini.??
He was joined by senior researcher at Chatham House, Jane Kinninmont, who stressed the point that rather than opposing the fight for democracy, the opposition was attempting to indicate the associated difficulties.
“People should not give up their fight for freedoms and human rights -- we are simply trying to outline the forces they are coming up against,” she said.?
Although peaceful protests in Egypt and Tunisia have been successful, she explained that it was because their respective leaders did not have power over their military forces, unlike other countries where government resistance to change has been markedly less futile.?
“Regimes are able to buy time; that matters to them, and they will do it,” she added.
Human Rights Watch’s researcher for Syria and Lebanon, Nadim Houry argued passionately that revolutions in the region will prove to be successful, and would guarantee the rights and freedoms to citizens that have been denied in the past.
“The Arab Spring is not just about revolution, it is about Arab people moving from subjects to citizens,” he said, adding “what we are witnessing now is history shifting. “People want to be able to openly discuss politics and express themselves,” he said.
Responding to a suggestion of historical Western corruption and the negative influence of the West in the region, he called for people to take responsibility for their own future.
“This is not about conspiracies -- for once we are not blaming other countries,” he said, adding “you have to take your rights with your own hands and stop blaming others.”??
An interesting portion of the debate saw audience members commenting on their personal opinions of their rights and the quality of lives in Qatar.?
Members of the audience suggested that the combination of economic stability and investment in certain areas of development create a happy and peaceful population.
Whether this served as a vindication of al-Mukhaini’s earlier point was an interesting question left unexplored by the debate.There was an air of inevitability about the result of the debate, as the impassioned young audience seemingly felt the need to express their support for revolutions in the region.
Kinninmont in particular spoke knowledgeably and gave numerous examples to support her arguments, but the opposition never managed to shake the feeling that they were opposed to democracy -- a misunderstanding that meant they were doomed to lose the debate from the outset.