Coups Work Only For Autocracies, Not Democracies: New Age Islam's Selection, 28 July 2016
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
28 July 2016
• Coups Work Only For Autocracies, Not Democracies
By Ahmed Al-Burai
• World Leaders Perpetuate Failed Anti-Terror Policies
By Rami G Khouri
• Ethnic Polarisation: Afghanistan's Emerging Threat
By Davood Moradian
• Time To Wage A Media War
By Tariq Alhomayed
• Will Turkey’s Leadership Seize Fresh Opportunities?
By Eyad Abu Shakra
• The Disgruntled Over Gulf Stability
By Turki Aldakhil
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
Coups Work Only For Autocracies, Not Democracies
By Ahmed al-Burai
27 July, 2016
"The government is in control," Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told a crowd of people gathered upon his call in Istanbul's Ataturk International Airport in the early hours of Saturday, July 16.
He added "We are not going to compromise ... we will continue to cleanse the virus from all state institutions."
Without hesitation, in the following days, the Turkish government vehemently embarked on an unprecedented massive crackdown to purge the military of mutineers.
Erdogan pledged a conclusive army overhaul. However, the operation toll surpassed 50,000 civil servants, including judges, prosecutors, academics, deans, and journalists.
Some were suspended, others were asked to resign, while the rest were immediately taken into custody.
Moreover, eight top-level officials in the Turkish parliament have been suspended, while two others were rotated.
All are believed to have direct links to the self-exiled cleric in the United States, Fethullah Gulen, who is blamed for orchestrating the foiled coup on July 15.
Maintaining the Historic National Unity
Indisputably, in the aftermath of such a brutal coup that has claimed the lives of more than 265 innocent people, destabilised a democratic sovereign state, unprecedentedly attacked its parliament and presidential compound, and provoked horror among its citizens, precise deterrent measures have to be decisively taken.
The purge procedures should be cautiously carried out, primarily to maintain the historic national unity that was uprightly manifested during the anti-coup public resistance.
It also needs to mobilise public opinion solely against that rogue faction of the army that instigated the coup endeavour. Otherwise, an excessive operation may backfire and the purge may lead to social unrest against the government.
Robert Fisk, the Middle East correspondent of The Independent, wrote an article titled "Turkey's coup may have failed - but history shows it won't be long before another one succeeds".
Although his deductive reasoning seems to be no more than misgivings about Turkey's "man who would recreate the Ottoman Empire", Fisk completely lost his objectivity when he designated Erdogan as one of the "potentates and dictators" who changed the constitution for his own benefit and restarted his wicked conflict with the Kurds" and went on "denying the 1915 Armenian genocide" - one needs to wonder whether this has anything to do with the military coup.
Nonetheless, this shall not preclude one from pondering how realistically Fisk is foreseeing the future.
Double Standards
Internationally, the ongoing crackdown has fuelled growing criticism. Amnesty International called upon the Turkish government to show restraint and respect to human rights, as the sheer figures of detentions and suspensions are alarming.
Turkey was also warned by European leaders that it could face international isolation and even a probable suspension of its membership of NATO if Erdogan overplays his hand after the botched coup.
On the other hand, Turkey expectedly declared a state of emergency for three months, ignoring the European Union's warnings, resulting in mounting bashful criticisms against it.
But people forget that it was France which also declared a state of emergency for six months in the aftermath of the November 13 attacks in Paris.
Yet Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz was acutely critical of Turkey's imposing the state of emergency, claiming that it would lead to strengthening authoritarianism.
Division over the Death Penalty
The straw that will break the camel's back is Turkey's mulling over reinstating the death penalty, which might jeopardise Turkey's EU accession efforts.
Constitutionally the step necessitates the approval of 367 politicians in the Turkish parliament. Legislators must also approve the enforcement of capital punishment verdicts retroactively.
Article 15 of the Turkish constitution stipulates that even under the conditions of war, martial law or state of emergency, crimes and punishments cannot be imposed retrospectively. Thus, the perpetrators of the purported coup attempt would be legally exempt.
That wouldn't extinguish the rage of the families of martyrs. Also, it wouldn't satisfy Erdogan, who is unequivocally determined to severely punish the putschists.
Even with the promised support of the 40 MPs of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), along with the votes of the 317 MPs of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), they won't be able to secure constitution amendment simply because both the main opposition Republican People's Party and the pro-Kurdish People's Democratic Party (HDP) proclaimed their reluctance to introduce capital punishment.
The available democratic tool is to call for a national referendum, and that requires the approval of 330 MPs - a figure that seems conceivably feasible.
Should the referendum fail, another snap election would be inevitably the last democratic resort to guarantee the threshold necessary for a constitutional change.
Latest developments in the aftermath of the coup attempt, the expected colossal retreat in the popularity of the HDP, the rift among the leaders of MHP, and the public momentum that is impatiently eager to punish traitors, would possibly secure a landslide victory for the AKP in any coming election.
Turkey is not a banana republic, and as far as it holds on to its promising democracy, Fisk and people like him need not to worry. They are rather advised to change the set of history books they have recently read.
Ahmed al-Burai is a lecturer at Istanbul Aydin University. He worked with BBC World Service Trust and the LA Times in Gaza. He is currently based in Istanbul and is mainly interested in Middle East issues.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/07/coups-work-autocracies-democracies-turkey-160726080237778.html
---
World Leaders Perpetuate Failed Anti-Terror Policies
By Rami G Khouri
28 July, 2016
Once again in recent weeks, the world has witnessed what has become a sad recurring phenomenon: Arab and foreign countries meet to discuss how to increase their cooperation to defeat Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) and al-Qaeda, while simultaneously those and other groups only expand their attacks across much of the world.
At what point does the world - especially Arab and Western countries at the core of this problem - recognise that the current strategy to defeat terrorism is not working, but in fact is expanding the networks of individuals and groups that are prepared to die for their criminal cause?
Ongoing Futility
In the last week, defence ministers from 38 countries led by the United States and Arab foreign ministers met separately and continued this charade.
They vowed to enhance their battle against ISIL and al-Qaeda, but obviously remain blind to the fact that their strategies are ineffective and also probably counterproductive.
At Andrews Air Force Base near Washington, American, French, British and other defence officials repeated their commitment to expand the battle against ISIL, especially to smash its core bases in the cities of Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq.
They spoke also of enhancing non-military means of defeating ISIL, via social media, better post-conflict stabilisation in Mosul and Raqqa, and other approaches. The French and the US governments also announced expanded military engagements in the battles under way.
The negative consequences of such short-sighted and misguided failed policies have now spread far beyond those scarred lands, and terrorise civilians across Europe and the US
Arab foreign ministers for their part met in preparation for this week's Arab League summit in Mauritania, and pledged to "defeat terrorism" and expand this fight across the region.
"We must defeat terrorism, it's a priority," Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said. Ironically, he highlighted the long-standing dilemma that Egypt and all Arab and Western powers experience: the more they use military force to defeat terrorism, the more governance and economic chaos they create on the ground, the greater becomes the pool of millions of desperate people in places such as Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Libya, and the easier it becomes for terrorists to recruit new members and establish satellite bases in those lands.
Not only has the straight military battle against ISIL, al-Qaeda and their ilk for the past two decades failed to quell these movements, it is now also obvious to any observer or official who deals with the realities - rather than the fantasies - of our world that terrorism in these forms will remain with us as long as underlying social, economic, political, and environmental conditions in many Arab and other developing countries remain unchanged.
These include notable lack of any democratic rights for citizens, high and stagnant unemployment and underemployment rates, increasing informal labour, significant declines in education quality, steadily rising numbers of children out of school - likely to reach 25 million in the coming years - and rampant deficiencies in adequate housing, public transport, clean water access, and, recently in some countries, reliable electricity supplies.
The Arab and Western meetings of senior officials this week signal that the world should expect to put up with many more years of terror and other forms of societal disruption, deviance, and crime.
This is for the simple reason that after decades of failed military action we still have not seen a single significant commitment from incumbent officials of any plans to address these and other underlying causes of the desperation and dehumanisation that drive some citizens to terror.
The Failure of Military Based Security
Egypt and the US capture this problem better than most other countries. Their common commitment to heavy-handed militarism locally and regionally has certainly spurred more terrorism than it has stopped.
And their shared policies that deny Arab citizens basic political, social and economic rights have vastly expanded the pool of vulnerable young men and families that feed the strong recruiting chains for ISIL, al-Qaeda and many other such groups.
Egypt's hard military response in the Northern Sinai region over the past five years has included destroying hundreds of homes, banning independent reporting in the area, killing suspected militants, and jailing hundreds of people.
This approach has seen a small local group of Islamist militants called Ansar Beit al-Maqdis develop into a wider insurgency that is now formally allied to ISIL, and also has carried out assassinations and bombings in central Cairo.
Over the past two years, Egypt under President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has imprisoned more than 40,000 citizens - some estimates say closer to 60,000 - mainly to stem political dissent or independent activism.
This has led to heightened security concerns alongside greater economic worries. The Egyptian pound has lost a good chunk of its value against the dollar in the past few years, while tourism, employment, and other economic sectors remain stressed.
In other words, a military-based "security" policy neither achieves genuine security for the citizenry, nor lays the groundwork for national economic development.
Short-Sighted and Misguided Policies
The American-led approach to fighting ISIL achieves the same problematic results on a much wider regional scale.
Active warfare and serious national fragmentation or collapse are the fate of every country where the US and others in the past two decades have fought terrorism mainly militarily - Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya - without addressing any of the underlying social, political, and economic disparities and deficiencies that are the deeper drivers of terror.
The negative consequences of such short-sighted and misguided failed policies have now spread far beyond those scarred lands, and terrorise civilians across Europe and the US, as they have done throughout the Arab-Asian region for decades.
When the Arab foreign ministers this week said in their statement that they agree to support "all [initiatives] that can help to end the crises of the Arab world, especially the Syrian, Libyan, and Yemeni conflicts", one wonders why they have made no efforts to launch the single most effective initiative that can end the massive crises of governance, development, and even legitimacy in many Arab states: democratisation and the consent of the governed.
Rami G Khouri is a senior public policy fellow at the Issam Fares Institute at the American University of Beirut and a non-resident senior fellow at Harvard University Kennedy School.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/07/world-leaders-perpetuate-failed-anti-terror-policies-160726135327587.html
---
Ethnic Polarisation: Afghanistan's Emerging Threat
By Davood Moradian
27 July, 2016
In Afghanistan's "theme park of challenges", ethnic politics is becoming a key contested debate, alongside the usual and known issues.
The Saturday terrorist attack that targeted predominantly the Hazara community has heightened political tension.
From harsh exchanges among growing Afghan social media users (PDF) to the controversy over how to name universities, the disputed 2014 presidential election to the stalled electoral reforms, ethnic politics is polarising political elites and the state bureaucracy.
While most Afghan political actors engage in one way or other in ethnic politics, they are hesitant to publicly and openly articulate their ethnic views - particularly to their external interlocutors.
Such a polarisation and, more importantly, its collective denial, could take the country into unchartered territory.
The Land of a Thousand Cities
Afghanistan is a wonderfully diverse nation. The ancient Bactria - in today's northern Afghanistan - was known as the "land of a thousand cities" in 4th century BC.
The diversity is visible in every corner of the country. Apart from traditional Islam as the religion of the majority of the country and Dari/Persian as the lingua franca of the nation, Afghanistan is a nation of minorities with overlapping, duplicating and parallel interactions.
The nation-state of Afghanistan is a hybrid polity, partly historical-natural and partly colonial and elite-constructed.
Since its consolidation in the late 19th century, it has struggled to settle its territorial space, build institutions and define its national identity.
Despite Afghans' proven records in ethnic harmony, the growing ethnic polarisation among the elites and state machinery can easily spread to other sectors of society.
The struggle over national identity has been between "civic nationalism" and "tribal nationalism".
One perspective construes Afghanistan as the land of the Pashtuns and hence Pashtuns' political mastery.
Their opponent discourse describes the country as the heartland of ancient Khorasan and ensuing political-cultural prominence of non-Pashtuns.
However, the majority of Afghans believe in the pluralistic nature of Afghan society and the need for an inclusive and representative state.
Furthermore, in the absence of any national census, the claim and counter-claim of being the largest ethnic group remain political, rather than factual.
Elites' ethnic politics has been a key driver of Afghan state weakness and its decades-old hybrid conflict.
This includes the controversy over the Durand Line, the collapse of the Afghan constitutional monarchy in the mid-1970s, the disintegration of leftist and Islamist parties, the inter-factional wars of the 1990s and the post-2001 elite factionalism.
Moreover, the absence of any separatist movement organised or widespread sectarian violence, communal violence, and Afghans' legendary determination for national independence show the resilience and strength of their national unity.
Post-2001 and Lost Opportunities
The collapse of the Taliban regime in late 2001 heralded Afghanistan's third democratisation endeavour and laying the foundation of a functioning democratic state.
The process of drafting a new constitution and the eventual outcome became once again a struggle between competing visions and constituencies, including the century-old tribal nationalism versus civic nationalism.
While it had successfully codified some impressive civic and political rights, gender equality and participatory politics, the new Afghan constitution has unfortunately also institutionalised tribal nationalism and ethnic hierarchy.
It adopted a strong presidential system to be accompanied by two symbolic vice presidents and almost no role for political parties.
The drafters' assumption and ensuing implementation was the allocation of presidency to a Pashtun and two slots of vice presidency to be given to the remaining ethnic groups - Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, and others. Such a strong presidential distribution of power has become a "winner-takes-all system".
The main advocates of a strong presidential system were expat technocrats, while the Mujahedeen groups were mainly in favour of a parliamentary system.
The former's choice became aligned with Washington's preference to deal with a strongman and London's historical ethnic prejudice and its Pakistan-oriented policy.
The concentration of power in Kabul had further widened the gap between the centre and remote provinces, particularly in Taliban-infested areas.
The controversial 2014 presidential election has significantly exacerbated and deepened ethnic politics; an election that was characterised by the European Union observers as "a North Korea situation".
The arrangement in the aftermath with the formation of the National Unity Government brokered by the United States Secretary of State John Kerry helped a peaceful transfer of power, but not a legal and constitutional one.
President Ashraf Ghani's refusal to implement political and electoral reforms, and growing accusation against his ethnic and exclusionary politics have exacerbated the 2014 disputed presidential election.
The Way Forward
Ethnic identity and occasional ethnic tension are the features of every multi-ethnic society - involving power, interest, identity, grievances, fear, envy and hatred.
However, the failure to manage ethnic politics is one of the drivers of socioeconomic underdevelopment, ethnic and civil wars, state collapse, ethnic cleansing and even genocide.
Despite Afghans' proven records in ethnic harmony, the growing ethnic polarisation among the elites and state machinery can easily spread to other sectors of society.
There are vivid and recent examples that show no country is immune from the poisonous politics of hatred and division.
A transparent, rational, emancipatory, ethical and political intra-Afghan dialogue is the way forward in transforming tribal nationalism into a fully rooted civic nationalism, with ensuing institutional and constitutional reforms.
Davood Moradian is the director-general of the Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies, former chief of programmes in President Hamid Karzai's office and chief policy adviser to Afghanistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/07/ethnic-polarisation-afghanistan-emerging-threat-160725120143630.html
----
Time to Wage A Media War
By Tariq Alhomayed
28 July 2016
The least that can be said about the Iranian authorities destroying 100,000 satellite dishes on the grounds that they breach regulations and threaten moral, cultural and social values is that this act is ridiculous. It is also evidence of the Iranian regime’s lack of seriousness, which some in the West are trying to gloss over.
Iran did this at home while it continues to open and finance Arabic-language television channels in our part of the world. In addition to this, it funds newspapers, news websites and agencies and is behind several usernames on Twitter, some of which are fake, which aim to sow discord in our region, particularly in Saudi Arabia.
The matter does not stop here; in a previous interview with our newspaper, the Bahraini minister of information said that there were 40 TV channels funded by Iran that target Bahrain’s security. It is clear to everyone that Iran is doing this to export its sectarian agenda to the region, and this is clearly evident in Lebanon where it funds newspapers and television channels. Iran has also tried to infiltrate Egypt before.
Therefore, Iran’s destruction of satellite dishes is ridiculous because it knows that half of the battle is fought via the media, but is then irritated by it and fears it. Iran does this while continuing to broadcast its poison in the region. It was also irritated by the media saying that the Munich attack was carried out by an Iranian and considered it to be defamation. Meanwhile, the Iranian media adopts all discourse that is offensive to Saudi Arabia and Sunnis in general! The truth is, and let us be honest with ourselves, that the Arab stance, especially that of the moderate states, is also surprising. Where is our unshakeable media? Where is our influential audio-visual and written media? Where is the media that addresses sensible people, strengthens the positions of friends, counter the sceptics and exposes enemies?
Are you talking about a television channel? I am talking to you about the need for television channels. Are you talking about a newspaper? I am talking to you about the need for newspapers and websites! Are you talking about Twitter? Then you’re living in a virtual world. Twitter is just a vessel, and is a trend that will be followed by another. I am talking about means of communication that are credible, informative, provide the opinions of experts, broadcast serious discussions and programs and that produce knowledge. I am talking about a cultural project that will begin with serious centres of studies. We are talking about institutions, not individual efforts.
If Iran is aware of the seriousness and importance of the media but is experiencing difficulties with it, what we are waiting for? Why are we leaving the arena open to Iranian interference, which uses the media only as a tool to promote its agenda?
Source: arabnews.com/node/960806/columns
----
Will Turkey’s Leadership Seize Fresh Opportunities?
By Eyad Abu Shakra
27 July 2016
Let me start by saying that even those who dislike Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan and are not fans of his style of government, like me, did not support the coup attempt against a democratically elected government.
Erdogan, in fact, has never enjoyed a ‘carte blanche’ support; something proven by disagreements with his closest allies like former president Abdulla Gul and former premier Ahmet Davutoglu. Moreover, given the fact that his avowed enemy is the Islamist authority and entrepreneur Fethullah Gulen – now living in the USA – one may say that he is not entitled to claim a monopoly of ‘Political Islam’. Last but not least, if one looks at the latest Turkish general elections’ results, one notices that his victorious AKP achieved an absolute parliamentary majority (317 out of 317 seats) by winning 49.5% of the votes; which means that 50.5% voted against him and his party.
These facts are worth keeping in mind as Turkey slowly forgets its shock, and its political establishment begins containing the volatile situation, prosecuting the adventurers and those implicated in the coup attempt against democracy. However, if Erdogan has every right to cleanse the security agencies of elements found guilty of conspiracy against a freely elected government, he has no right of exploiting this conspiracy to amass more personal and partisan powers on Turkey’s security agencies, and pursue political revenge against his opponents.
Actually, Premier Binali Yidirim did well, the other day, when he praised and thanked the leaders of the opposition parties for standing against the coup plot. If president Erdogan follows suit, a proper relationship may develop between the government and the opposition in a healthy democratic environment; which is crucial as one of the most dangerous threats threatening Turkey is that of sliding into civil war that would tear the nation’s fabric apart. Thus there is no alternative other than consensus on democratic processes, including the political accountability, devolution of power, and respect of freedoms and rights.
Some may claim that the Turkish electorate were wrong to trust the AKP’s elections agenda and promises, but this may be argued against British voters who may have been wrong to opt for leaving the European Union, or American voters who twice elected Ronald Reagan the president of the world’s greatest power.
Correcting Mistakes
For the electorate, anywhere, to be wrong is not entirely strange, because democracy does not automatically mean one makes the ‘right’ choice; but what it does is that its mechanisms allow for ‘correcting the mistakes’ as it were, if properly exercised. What I mean is that any election result may be turned upside down in the following elections within four or more years, based on the principle of ‘trial and error’ which is the core of science as well as natural human interaction.
Furthermore, there is no guarantee that an individual or the population as a whole will not suffer from a misplaced democratic vote, however, this will be far less damaging, less costly and of a shorter duration than suffering under insatiable dictatorial ‘police states’ that respects no rights, no thought and no privacy. The Middle East has experienced several versions of such ‘police states’, and it is not difficult to see the outcome in the shape of disasters, backwardness, extremism, frustration and terrorism.
In some Middle Eastern countries – Arab, in particular, state apparatus and institutions have totally collapsed; ‘imported’ glittering progressive, liberal and nationalist slogans have become illusions, indeed, masks that cover the most parochial tribal, sectarian and local loyalties. The role of the armies has changed from being ‘defenders of the homeland’ to becoming murderous militias using the most lethal prohibited weapons against innocent unarmed civilians, and displacing millions.
On the other hand, in other countries in the Middle East that have chosen the path of ‘revolution’, in the name of the ‘downtrodden’ against the forces of internal corruption and foreign ‘arrogance’, religious mottos have become a cover for financial and militaristic ‘mafias’ expanding everywhere, creating regional militias, and inciting civil wars that are sowing the seeds of hatred and reaping conflicts.
Frightening Examples
Turkey is today watching frightening examples throughout the Middle East. It fully understands how tenuous its position is, beginning with Washington’s regional bet on Kurdish ‘nationalism’, including the position of an aggressive and expansionist Iran that claims control of four Arab capitals, three of which – Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut – are close to Turkey, and culminating in Moscow’s political and military pressures, along with uneasy relations with Israel and Egypt.
In fact, despite the fact that Ankara has received many messages expressing support for ‘Turkish democracy and legitimacy’, it would be naïve to believe that these messages reflect the real strategic positions of the senders. I personally reckon that Erdogan does not believe those who were claiming solidarity with him would not have sided with coup plotters had the Turkish streets been lukewarm, and had opposition party sensitivities not declared their strong rejection of the return of military dictatorship.
One thing that must be beyond doubt is that the regional and international justification for the failed coup was ready for marketing in several capitals, which would love to see a different leadership in Turkey, and do not believe that ‘some’ people deserve liberty and democracy.
This is why I say the Turkish regime won its fights a couple of days ago thanks to the backing of the Turkish people who refused to go backwards. However, this difficult experiment is bound to teach valuable lessons; and this is an opportunity for the Turkish leadership to draw the right conclusions, shield itself with its people’s trust, and develop a wise strategy for a cohesive state and effective regional and international power.
Eyad Abu Shakra (also written as Ayad Abou-Chakra) began his media career in 1973 with Annahar newspaper in Lebanon. He joined Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper in the UK in 1979, occupying several positions including: Senior Editor, Managing Editor, and Head of Research Unit, as well as being a regular columnist. He has several published works, including books, chapters in edited books, and specialized articles, in addition to frequent regular TV and radio appearances.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2016/07/27/Will-Turkey-s-leadership-seize-fresh-opportunities-.html\
----
The Disgruntled Over Gulf Stability
By Turki Aldakhil
27 July 2016
The current debate on social networking sites expresses a number of dangerous phenomena. The most prominent is linked to the motherland and citizenship, which are honorable concepts. Citizenship is a combination of rights, duties, freedom, responsibility, discipline and justice.
During the past five years, the discussion has been between two major movements in the Gulf. The first is a combination of liberal patriots and moderate Islamists. This movement expresses its patriotism by standing against the cells that were arrested in Gulf countries following the Arab Spring. Its priority is the security of Gulf countries, because they are the last Arab wall that has not been destroyed.
The other movement mostly consists of the Muslim Brotherhood and remnants of nationalists and revolutionary leftists. It doubts everything the state does, and believes it is a duty to question it.
Someone in this movement believed the terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia in 2003 were staged by security forces, using corpses, to eliminate Islamists! This person came to his senses years later, but this cynicism is typical of the movement, which actively uses hashtags on social networking sites.
The hashtags are about detainees in Gulf countries, against whom judicial rulings have been issued or will be issued. This movement mocks patriots and considers them government supporters. Both movements are active, but sadly the revolutionary one dominates social media networks and platforms, making mountains out of molehills.
Citizenship
It is impossible to understand good citizenship without deep respect for state institutions. Thus it is no longer a secret that participants in the campaigns to release detainees are fuelling the terrorism striking Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. The Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association’s speeches are dangerous, and do not understand the bases of the state. It incites sabotage and street protests.
Some Sahwa Movement (Islamic Awakening) symbols secretly supported the revolutionary movement, but soon realized it was a mirage. The tools they used and the media campaigns they launched against the state and its institutions backfired on them.
These symbols and movements cannot understand the meaning of citizenship. They said democracy was more important than security, then they saw what happened in neighbouring countries, which have neither freedom nor democracy. Unfortunately, some still see the Arab Spring as a viable project that will one day be completed.
While the patriotic movement unites wise men, opposition and revolutionary parties carry out attacks. Who will be glad if the Gulf turns into a region resembling Lebanon, Syria or Iraq? We feel deep pain at what has happened to these countries and their people, and we share their suffering. There is a huge responsibility - particularly among writers, media figures and opinion-makers - to avoid this happening in the Gulf.
Turki Aldakhil is the General Manager of Al Arabiya News Channel. He began his career as a print journalist, covering politics and culture for the Saudi newspapers Okaz, Al-Riyadh and Al-Watan. He then moved to pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat and pan-Arab news magazine Al-Majalla.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2016/07/27/The-disgruntled-over-Gulf-stability.html
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/coups-work-only-autocracies,-democracies/d/108099