The Arab world shakes, the West shifts nervously

The suicide of a young Tunisian salesman last month could well change the world’s political scene. In much the same way that Paris sneezed and Europe caught a cold, which lead to (admittedly slow) liberal reform in the nineteenth century, Mass political protest in Tunisia has triggered popular movements throughout North Africa and the Near East, much of it planned on Facebook, Twitter and Internet forums.

The reactions were relatively positive. While some attempts at controlling the populace through the usual despotic methods were made (including “turning off” the internet in Egypt’s case), most of the affected leaders realise this will not work, having seen Tunisian president Ben Ali flee the country. Instead, Egyptian president Mubarak has promised to not seek re-election and King Abdullah II of Jordan dismissed his entire cabinet and brought in former Prime Minister Maruf Bakhit to introduce real political reform. Other leaders in the region have been preparing similar moves and, in the case of Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir, emphasising democratic credentials.

The calls for the right to determine their leaders and less corruption seem promising. In European minds, it is perhaps reminiscent to the Polish Solidarity movement which successfully pushed for the collapse of Soviet –style totalitarian Communism in Eastern Europe.

This is however a dangerous comparison to make. Calls for democracy are not the same as calls for liberty; as demonstrated by the need to have broad constitutions and supreme courts in modern republics. The protests in the region instead have worrying parallels to the events of 1978 in Iran, which lead to the fall of the Shah. The corrupt and oppressive regime was replaced with a “republic”, but on an Islamic rather than liberal model. This system of government may provide a slightly higher standard of living and greater rights to its citizens than the totalitarians. However, its people are far from free and its views are so at odds with the liberal model that it can cause greater international instability; at the most extreme leading to a ‘clash of civilisations’ or perhaps a new cold war. Iran and Israel have already expressed their respective hopes and concerns that any countries which do collapse will adopt this system.

The evidence so far would suggest this is not an overreaction, particularly in the case of Egypt. Like the Shah, Mubarak’s critics accuse him not only of corruption, but of being a Western puppet; he is seen as having promoted strong links to Israel and Obama described him as a “friend”. The main opposition movement in Jordan is an Islamic one, promoting the holistic model of Islam instituted by Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran some thirty years ago.

However, this is not to say that all is lost for the liberal West. The protests in many countries are still at a very early stage. As shown by the protests in Iran last year, they may come to nothing and pro-Mubarak supporters in Egypt have staged equally powerful and violent counter-demonstrations. Many of the protests are not necessarily calling for the collapse of the government but, like in the case of Jordan and Syria (Iran’s closest ideological ally), the introduction of greater reform and greater political freedom. Nevertheless, the issue does still remain; all it takes is the introduction of a single new radical Islamic regime in any of these countries, and international stability will decline.

There is a clear lesson here for Liberal governments; they should not only take concern with those countries that directly threaten them but also be wary of those which oppress their own people, regardless of how great a strategic ally they may be to the West. Otherwise, when those oppressed people finally fight back, the West will be unable to take the moral high ground and will face even greater threats.