Philosophers, theorists and researchers have tried since ancient times to devise optimal theories to build human societies. Terms and concepts of contemporary politics were manifestations of this effort. However, the elites in the Arab and Muslim world no longer contributed to the march of human civilization and culture in recent centuries and decades. They started consuming the Western products and marketizing them to their compatriots without addition or modification that takes into account the specificities of Arab and Islamic communities.
This problem is reflected in the stagnation of Islamic civilization which explains this inertia. Some Arab and Islamic civilization centers turned into archaeological structures. Centuries ago, this civilization enlightened the world and produced science, knowledge, culture and arts that inspired other civilizations.
Democracy and related theories of governance aim to build systems of government that provide justice and a decent living for citizens. However, a report issued by a center for studies in a Gulf country indicates that the ‘security approach’ is more prevalent in the political landscape in the Gulf Arab states, both at the domestic level in dealing with local opposition in each country, or at the regional level in relations with neighboring countries. The report claims that at the local level, the ‘security strategy’ is still adopted in the UAE, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
Ironically, the producers claim that their report comes from the Gulf environment, but in reality, I am not sure about any prevalent security approach in the UAE they are talking about.
If they are talking about Muslim Brotherhood terrorist group in the United Arab Emirates, I will not say that this is an internal Emirati affair or talk about the case in which the group elements were involved in recent years, but I will point out that the Muslim Brotherhood in the UAE are not a political opposition, but they are elements with people with foreign agendas and no popular support or influence. They have been present in the United Arab Emirates since decades. They were not tracked by security services and were always welcomed by the UAE senior leaders to change their ways. But every time, they remained determined to uphold allegiance to their mentor, and tried to reproduce experiences of other countries. They were not treated with security measures but under the law. Their trials were public and transparent.
If we have accepted to live as citizens equal in rights and duties under a sovereign state, why some people assume we have to have to accept that our state shares sovereignty with movements with foreign loyalties that do not recognize the idea of state sovereignty?
Perhaps some of the Gulf elites want to see things in our countries using the lenses of Western powers with their well-known ambitions and objectives. Everyone knows that the UAE has a unique model of governance according to citizen-centered decision-making. This model seeks to develop mechanisms and increase participation in decision-making through a gradual political experience while maintaining social stability.
Those elites should try to produce a political theory that takes into account the peculiarities of the situations in our countries, which are different from the West. To claim that the security approach is prevailing at the regional level in the relations with the neighboring countries—probably referring to the Yemeni crisis—is a strategic error. The GCC has adopted the security approach in Yemen only after the control by the Houthis of most of Yemeni territory, threatening the security and stability of the Yemeni people and feeding the civil conflict in this country of vital importance to the security of the GCC. In addition, Operation Decisive Storm was a security solution that came after the GCC’s unsuccessful initiative aimed at ensuring a safe political transition of power in Yemen.
When the people advance the elite intellectually and support the political leadership, both in the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia or other Gulf Cooperation Council countries, these elites lose their influence and the role of awareness, which they are supposed to play. Realist vision comes from the grass roots and practical solutions cannot be imported but should emerge from local environments. The real crisis is not in the relationship between the people of the GCC countries and their leaders but between the peoples and the theorizing elites who suffer societal alienation and weak ability to think for themselves.
