Lebanon, An Arab re Awakening and Economics.

Joseph Schumpeter one of the greatest minds in economics coined the term “creative destruction” in an effort to describe how capitalism moves forward by encouraging innovation and creativity. I believe , rather strongly that this idea applies rather neatly to the field of political science in general and to what is taking place in the Middle East in particular. What appeared to be hooliganism to Mr. Mubarak and his entourage and what is described as mobs and criminals by Saif Al Islam are anything but. This apparent spontaneous chaos is in effect nothing but the most creative of destructions that could give birth to a new free and democratic MENA.
Two down and seven to go might soon become three down and six to go. Wouldn’t it be grand if the move towards democracy, diversity and freedom is to finally take root in the Arab world?

Many of us have been calling for an “Arab awakening” a Gdansk moment or an Arab Berlin wall for a while. But if the revolution is to uproot the ruling structures in each of the Arab countries then why do we count only 9 dictators instead of 21? Well, in my case, at least, I think a radical change in the big 9 will force the others in the Gulf including Iraq and Lebanon to change also. The smaller countries are more dependent on their surroundings and none of them is strong enough to impose its beliefs but each of them will not be able to resist the tide to change and reform once that becomes the dominant form in the region.

Yet in spite of all of this I have been struggling to explain the difference between what is going on in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and the lack of any change in Lebanon. After a lot of soul searching I believe that to a large extent one can explain the respective differences between any of the major players and Lebanon in terms of another economic principle. In a major country such as Egypt or possibly Libya the power is concentrated in one person at the top of the pyramid. That single person embodies all powers in the country. This concentration of power is akin to that of a pure monopolist who is free to exploit and abuse the consumers/citizens. Lebanon on the other hand is closer to what Galbraith called the “counter vailing power” structure. This would be the fact when a pure monopolist in one field is not free to exploit, restrict and abuse since this monopolist faces an equally powerful monopolist on the other side of the enterprise. The interaction between these two monopolists will result in a solution somewhere in between what each of them would have liked to do. Theoretically the solution could be a total negation of the power of each and thus the citizen/consumer will contend with a solution that could be rather beneficial. A good example of this would be say an automotive giant who would have liked to impose its will on tire manufacturers but if the automotive giant faces a rubber giant then none of them would be in a position to exploit the other and the consumer will benefit.

Michael Young, of the Daily Star, has dealt with the issue of relative personal freedom in the Lebanese public square by attributing that relative freedom to the inability of any of the major sects to impose its own will unhindered. That is exactly what a counterveiling power does. This argument , however, is not to be construed as one in favour of sectarianism.

But this above argument, although it does lead to good outcomes, is just as badly in need of reform as any of the other single power dictatorships for the simple reason that the solution of the interaction between the oligopolists can never be determined in advance and if it does turn out to be efficient then that would be purely accidental. The system cannot guarantee efficiency/freedom and so the need to change and the need to adopt a fairer more competitive system are just as acute as in the case of a pure monopolist/dicatorship. As a result the revolutionary task in Lebanon is even more difficult than it was for the Tunisians and the Egyptians who had to organize against the person on top of the pyramid in an effort to uproot the regime that he represents. In Lebanon, we do not have that luxury, we have to organize against and get rid of the people at the top of a number of smaller pyramids whose individual constituents regard only the opposing pyramids as corrupt and inefficient. Each constituency appears to be relatively satisfied with its own mini pyramid and concentrates on blaming the opposing power structures. This problem fits very well the line from Luke:

“How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite”. Is there any hope for a radical revolutionary reform in Lebanon? Only if we can shed our religious tribal affiliations and act as one. Unfortunately for us in Lebanon, Mouwatinieah and secularism are alien ideas.

Lebanon: Single Colour Cabinet and a Constitutional President

A team must be cohesive if it wishes to succeed. Its members must all share an understanding and a commitment to the goal so that they can execute the plays flawlessly. Unless they can communicate and cooperate selflessly then their efforts will not be in harmony and will result in missed plays and a record of bad calls.

Government cabinets are not any different. A cabinet must be composed of members that share a vision of what needs to be accomplished so that all ministries would align their policies and efforts in order to reinforce each other. Furthermore as challenges arise the discussions will be collegial and not antagonistic. These matters are elementary and are used as a guide in cabinet formations all over the world. Unfortunately, this very simple and obvious idea is not being heeded in Lebanon and the results have been simply disastrous. The last two Lebanese governments have failed to have any meaningful accomplishments in any field and have resulted in nothing else but governing paralysis and dogmatic infighting. These results were to be expected since the structure of the last two cabinets has been anything but homogenous; in a sense the members did not even speak the same language. The cabinets have resembled the biblical story about confusion, lack of effectiveness and disarray told about the Tower of Babel.

It has often been said that one must experience pain in order to appreciate happiness and chaos in order to seek coordination and cooperation. Although we can assume experience is the best teacher, some slow learners will get their fingers burnt repeatedly by touching the same hot service again and again. The best that can be said about the current crop of Lebanese politicians is that they appear to suffer of a serious learning disability that is preventing them from internalizing the lessons from the recent past two attempts at forming cabinets that are designed to fail.

March 14 had fought unsuccessfully the idea of sharing the cabinet with March 8 under PM Saniora and then repeated the mistake, under pressure, with PM Sa’ad Hariri. In both of these cases March 8, a group that is the antithesis of March 14, cannot be blamed for insisting to be included in the cabinet and be given veto powers. This brilliant policy transformed the parliamentary minority into the effective group whose approval is required for any and all government acts and it allowed the minority to demonstrate the inability of the majority to govern by preventing the majority from any accomplishments.

One would have hoped that this experience of ineffectiveness would make the idea of incongruous cabinet something to be shunned by all. Not so. A few of the March 8 allies are willing to form a cabinet that accommodates their adversaries and what is even more astonishing is that many in March 14 are also open to the idea of joining the Mr. Mikati cabinet as the blocking minority with a veto power.

Responsible governance should be the only guide and whoever is to form the cabinet must avoid at all costs the mistakes of the past. Mr. Mikati can demonstrate his ability to govern by assembling a group of either politicians or technocrats or possibly a combination of both provided that all the members share the same vision of what is good for the country and also share the vision of how to get there. Let the cabinet govern, let it be homogeneous and let it be held accountable to the parliament and to the public. It is time that we stop playing the silly unconstitutional games of allocating ministries to groups and political offices. A cabinet must be one colour and must not award the veto power to any group or even offer the president a group of ministries. That would be a gross violation of the constitution and will introduce another governing tradition that is misguided. A country is to be ruled by a set of laws embodied in its constitution. If these laws do not offer the president any meaningful executive power then we have no choice but to obey these laws as long as they are in effect.

Lebanon needs to demonstrate its ability to respect its constitution by forming a government guided by and based on laws. This implies that those who have the most votes form a single colour cabinet and that whenever the constitution is violated then these alleged violations must be addressed. Lebanon would be doing itself, legitimacy and democracy a disservice if it does not clear up the issue of whether its current president, Michel Suleiman, has been constitutionally elected or not.

Hezbollah: A New Beginning

As I was writing a post for this blog about the latest developments regarding Hezzbollah in Lebanon I recieved the latest entry by AbuKais of From Beirut to the Beltway. His take on the same issue is so good that I decided to share it with you instead of the piece that I wrote. Thanks AK.

There's nothing more hilarious than the sight of farmed Hizbullah "fighters" deploying to Beirut streets to "send a warning message" to the Lebanese population. Nasrallah's men in black might succeed in scaring a few citizens, but their heavy brainwashing will be the death of them. If that is the course the supreme leader of the resistance has chosen for his followers, then he is more confused than we thought.
I mean, seriously? He wants to take over the country when entire armies and heavily armed militias could not? And with whose help? Michel Aoun? The latest joke goes that Aoun, following Ben Ali's escape from Tunisia, is seriously considering moving to Carthage to reclaim the Phoenician throne.
The former general is better off praying for a return of Phoenician rule, for he and his Hizbullah orcs can never sustain a victory in a country like Lebanon. Even Jumblatt will not be able to come to their rescue. The Druze leader might have finally realized the limit of begging for peace. The men of Mount Lebanon are not known to accept humiliation.
The party of God wants to rule Lebanon? Good luck trying.
The Saudis today, after wasting years of Lebanese time milking power-hungry Assad for an "SS" solution, predicted the best that Hizbullah can achieve: fragmentation.
The best Nasrallah could hope to achieve is a protracted civil conflict where he plays the role of occupier, and where a growing resistance will show him and his fighters the price overly arrogant and ambitious sectarian leader pay whenever they try to dominate the other sects in this country.
Hizbullah never got Lebanon, and will never get it. They are an extremist, violent organization powered by an ideology that is alien to the country of honey and orange blossoms. Lebanon might be messed up, but Hizbullah's chances of converting the other Lebanese to its creed by force are negligible.
Even if Hizbullah consolidates its control over the country, it is finished as a resistance movement. This is a group fighting for its survival, as its leaders keep repeating, not understanding the significance of their statements. Had they tried to become part of the Lebanese fabric, they would not be in this situation, being accused of killing the very people they pretended to protect.
May they make more mistakes, and may Nasrallah continue to show his true colors. Welcome to the beginning of the rest of the story.

Save Lebanon: Sack the political Class.

A major academic work about International Systems defines sovereign state to be:” any nation or people, whatever may be the form of its internal constitution, which governs itself independently of foreign powers”; and furthermore, The New Oxford American Dictionary defines sovereign as an “adjective (of a state that is) fully independent in determining its own affairs”.

Lebanon in its current form does not even come close to meeting the basic qualifications of independence and sovereignty. Whenever there is a seminal question that needs to be dealt with it appears that the solution of choice is to abdicate our responsibility and to ask our neighbours to decide for us.

Whether it is the issue of Palestinian arms, the problem of how to deal with a state within a state, the question of cabinet formation, the terms for ending a civil war or even the potential ramifications of an international indictment by a judicial tribunal set up by the United Nations on our behest, the Lebanese have shown their preference for always dealing with the superficial by never having the courage to address the root cause of what ails them. The tendency to live in denial and to ask outsiders to decide on our behalf is best described as a reflection of immaturity, incompetence and inadequacy.

How can we be up to the task when most of the politicians do not believe in the Lebanese project? They do, after all, spend most of their time competing for the grace of regional dictators and monarchs when they should be looking after the welfare of their citizens and the affairs of the state. Lebanon is threatened, again, with political instability and a total ineffectual cabinet but yet the PM, Sa’ad Hariri, has spent more than 50% of his time in office traveling on either peripheral missions, such as a visit to the Sultan of Oman, or a personal visit to Saudi Arabia or France every other week, a s if the current political standoff is not dire enough for him. I do not doubt the sincerity of the PM but what counts are actions much more than words. I see no difference between his busy personal travel schedule and Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake”. His behavior is at best insensitive and comes across as a non chalant attitude. If he is not willing to immerse himself in governing then he would do us all a favour by resigning.


The criticism of Mr. Hariri is not to be taken as an endorsement of the opposition. Far from it, Hezbollah does not bother to hide the sources of its funding, illegal arms and spiritual and worldly devotion to Qom and its concept of Wilayat Al Faqih. The head of the FPM, on the other hand, has proven himself to be a megalomaniac who will side with whoever promises to aid him attain his only goal of becoming a president. The FPM, as Wiki leaks has demonstrated, have been very handsomely rewarded financial for their positions; $50 million from Qatar for OTV. As for many of the other s such as Beri, Frangieh and Jumblatt they will do anything to win the favour of Damascus, Lebanese affairs be damned. Then there are the second and third tier parties and leaders such as Mr. Gemayel and Mr. Geagea who carry so much baggage that it will be difficult to give them the time of the day.

Then there is the President, Michael Suleiman. He wants to be taken seriously but forgets that he has made a deal with the devil to be elected. How can he possibly defend a constitution that he shredded when he accepted to run for an office that the constitution prohibits him, explicitly from seeking? There isn’t a shred of difference between him and Assad of Syria, Mubarak of Egypt, Bin Ali of Tunisia or Sale of Yemen not to mention the absolute monarchs of Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Bahrain or the inherited leaderships of Kuwait, the UAE and Jordan.

The only logic that can justify the creation of a state is to empower its population to elect representatives that will act on their behalf and in such a way as to promote their welfare. When the politicians fail in exercising their duties, as they have amply demonstrated in the Lebanese case, then the good citizens have the obligation to retire every one of those that have failed them. If we choose not to exercise our natural right, to rule ourselves and to have representatives up to the task then we have no one to blame except ourselves. It is ironic that many of the Lebanese are constantly complaining about the total and utter failure of the political class, as they should, and their tendency not to act to right the ship of state.

And So This Is Christmas

I have not yet seen a better video to express the idea that John Lennon and Yoko Ono were striving for in their incomparable song War Is Over better known as And So This Is Christmas.
May the this Christmas Season and the New Year usher in a period of Peace, Justice and Happiness to all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8jw-ifqwkM

National Unity Cabinet: A Disaster

The current Lebanese make up of the cabinet; the so called national unity government; has been nothing short of an abject failure in every single respect. The Lebanese experience should be used as a poster child for the inefficacy and absurdity of a multicoloured government. The real victims of this unworkable mixture of two ideologies that have diametrically opposing aims and that have totally opposing visions of what should guide the policies of the state are the Lebanese citizens whose aspirations , dreams and hopes have been dealt one blow after another.
Lebanon needs to go back to a single colour government. It does not matter which party forms the cabinet as long as the party in question can put together a cabinet whose ministers are committed to a single vision to which they agree to devote all their energies and powers of persuasion.

The past two cabinets have amply demonstrated the inadvisability of a cabinet whose membership is not homogenous. How can we expect ministers, who have nothing in common, not even their allegiance to the state, to function as a team. There are certain things that do not mix no matter how hard one tries or wishes for them to operate as a team. Whenever the members of the same team do not pull in the same direction then their efforts will at best neutralize each other at the expense of the citizen who is left waiting for Godot.

Both major camps are equally to blame for not having the courage to level up with the Lebanese people to tell them that the current cabinet has been just as ineffective as the previous one. In a sense one can even make the case that both cabinets have even been counterproductive when measured by the total lack of accomplishments on any front. The previous cabinet spent most of the time arguing about whether the cabinet lost its legitimacy as soon as the HA cabinet members and their allies stopped attending cabinet meetings. Many in the March 14 alliance blamed the HA cabinet coalition for taking the government hostage by paralyzing the ability of the cabinet to meet and adopt meaningful policies that the Lebanese were eagerly awaiting in all areas, political, social and economic.

What is unfortunate but not unexpected is that March 14 seems to have switched positions with the Hezbollah cabinet members. March 14, led by Sa’ad Hariri the prime minister has done everything possible but call a cabinet meeting in months. But what is even more tragic is that the cabinet meetings are superfluous anyway. The public has become accustomed to the lack of ability to govern and to lead by both sides.

Hezbollah and its associates carry a larger part of the blame for the current standoff since this novel but silly idea of forming a cabinet from all sides is their idea. What this national unity government has effectively done is subvert the Lebanese democratic system that is built on the idea of separation between the executive and the legislative. In the current makeup the Chamber of Deputies plays no important role besides rubber stamping what the opposing parties agree to in the cabinet, which has not been much lately.

Lebanon needs to restore to the Chamber its role to hold the cabinet responsible for the progress or lack of it. But when the cabinet represents all of the factions in the Chamber then who is going to hold whom responsible for what? There is a solution and an effective one for that matter; let the party with the most votes in the Chamber form a one colour cabinet that will have no excuse not to meet and perform the people’s business. These ministers and MP’s do not come cheap anyway. Actually they are some of the best paying jobs in the country and the poor Lebanese citizen can hardly afford these expenses especially when the recipients fail to perform their assigned task. Let the majority govern and let the minority oppose so that the public will be able to hold the parties accountable. A one colour cabinet will have no excuse not to meet and not to perform because as soon as it fails to meet or perform then the other party could call for a vote of confidence. No one can do that under the current unworkable system of unaccountability.

Wikileaks Commotion: Is It Justified?

It is no exaggeration to say that the world media is abuzz about Wkileaks, the not-for-profit international organization that has been making public leaked information regarding a gamut of subjects from a list of censored films by Lebanon, to files about the Afghan war, the Iraqi war and now 250,000 US diplomatic cables involving 270 embassies.

Many remember the Pentagon papers that revealed clearly that the “Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance". Many more remember with sadness the tendency of the Ford Pinto to explode essentially because the management had deliberately undertaken a cost-benefit analysis that showed that the corporation would be better served by not upgrading a dangerous fuel system that has the tendency to explode. There are many such examples, real and imagined where documents hidden from the public were meant to mislead and or cover up negligence and even criminal activities.

The documents released by Wiki leaks in connection to the conduct/misconduct of war in Afghanistan and Iraq meet the above aim that public disclosure will shine a bright light on events and developments that were meant to deceive and even deny justice. But is this the case in the sensational revelations that have caused so much coverage, the world over, when Wiki leaks made public the contents of 250,000 US diplomatic cables from all over the world? Of course not.

These cables are in essence the private analysis of employees that were required to provide their employer in confidence their non public evaluation of events and political leaders. The other highly sensational and even inflammatory issue in these cables was the public disclosure of the private opinions of various government officials all over the world who met with and were urged to discuss in strict confidence their views regarding a large variety of matters that range from the Iranian nuclear standoff to the UK military performance in Afghanistan.

Many countries and possibly most have adopted the legal principle of privileged communications that prevents certain parties, say physicians, from testifying against their patients by making their privileged information public. Courts will not admit into evidence such information on the grounds that the patient/client is protected from having the doctor, the priest, her lawyer or her suppose use her words against her under any set of circumstances. Don’t you think that a politician should have just as much right to keep his views private if he chooses? We do have a very wide understanding when practically every single one of us either seeks advice in confidence or offers it with the expectation that the ideas will not be plastered across the internet screens all over the globe.

Nothing more than embarrassment of some will result from these leaks. No higher purpose will be served and no one’s welfare will be protected by their release. Their effects will be momentary at best, until the novelty and shock value of such revelations die out. What did anyone gain from the knowledge that the King of Bahrain spoke freely about his fears from a nuclear Iran or from the fact that some US analysts suspect that the Russian mafia might have infiltrated the highest level of the Russian government. Was it really unexpected to hear Elias Murr, the Lebanese Minister of Defense telling the US ambassador that the Lebanese army will not engage the Israelis if and when a war between them and Hezbollah is waged? Yes it is highly embarrassing for a defense minister to speak so openly about the impotency of his armed forces but should that be a surprise when the Lebanese army is underequipped, undertrained. It’s an army without ammunitions.


I am not suggesting that the media organizations should not have covered the leaks. It’s a news story and that is the sole rationale for their existence. Even Wiki leaks itself had to distribute the information once that information was given to it. All calls by some to prosecute and even assassinate Mr. Assange the Wiki leaks human face are deplorable but those that delivered the information to Wiki leaks should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in this case. It is immensely important not to confuse the forest for the trees; private opinions given in confidence are not the same thing as conspiracies to defraud and cover-up illegal and criminal activities. And this too shall pass without any major repercussions. The leaks in question have been highly titillating and will cause lots of discomforts to the principals but no higher purpose will be served as a result of these essentially stolen private remarks opinions that were not meant for public consumption.

67th Lebanese Independence: A Cruel Joke

Sovereignty and independence, you cannot have one without the other. These two ideas form the basis upon which states are formed. Unfortunately there is no international standard that requires a state to demonstrate that it meets the prerequisites of statehood if it wishes international recognition and if it wishes to be entitled to the privileges that accrue with such recognition.

Lebanon, within its current borders, was created by the French mandate in 1926 and was ultimately declared an independent nation on November 22, 1943 upon the release of the Lebanese detainees from Rashia. Yes Lebanon is 67 years young today and deserves to recognize this day if for nothing else but managing to survive through the past 67 tumultuous years. But survive is barely what it has done.

Right from the first moment of its inception as an independent state Lebanon found a way to institutionalize, implicitly, its sectarianian structure. What looked at the time as a wise and accommodative decision on the part of the President Beshara Al Khoury and the PM Riad Al Solh has evolved to be a great historical error that has prevented Lebanon from ever attaining any of its potential. It is a sad occasion indeed when a country celebrates its 67th anniversary of independence while it has no independence, no sovereignty and no state to show for its efforts.

Where have the last 67 years gone? They have been wasted in squabbles, conflicts, civil wars and in paying fealty to political feudal lords and religious leaders. Lebanon has spent every second of its existence so far trying to maintain the illusion that there is a state when in reality what we have become is nothing more than a sectarian federation of residents with no allegiances to a state.

Lebanon has failed to grow the idea of citizenship among its residents who are willing and anxious to do the bidding of any state as long as it is not Lebanese under the mistaken and deadly rationale of sectarian balance. Yes we have managed to keep a sectarian balance of sorts but we have failed to create a state. "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” You cannot devote your life to the promotion of a sect at the expense of the state. Religion, faith, sectarian wellbeing should be a private affair and must never be allowed to dictate national policy. When we let that happen, which is exactly what we have done for 67 years, then we become what we are, a nation of pretenders. We pretend to be free, we pretend to be independent, we pretend to be sovereign we pretend to have a state.

All is not lost. We can still redeem ourselves but our first act must be to take an oath of allegiance to an idea, to freedom, democracy, human rights and total unquestioning allegiance to a state that is not based on sectarian principles and discriminatory practices. We can still actualize our dream of establishing a state worthy of the name but in order to do that we have no choice but to relegate religious leaders to their spiritual roles only. We have to forge an identity that is not primarily defined by our religious faith but by our civil rights. We have to shout it from the roof tops that the emperor has no clothes.


If we are to save the Lebanese experiment then we have no choice but to establish the power of the state all over the land and to elect the best and the brightest to positions of power no matter what god they pray to or even whether they pray at all. The last thing that we need to hear tomorrow (today) is an empty rhetoric from a president who was unconstitutionally elected praising accommodations with a party that acts as a state within a state and whose major concern is the appeasement of our neighbourly dictator or absolute monarch.

The Lebanese experiment is still alive after 67 years but barely so. We are on life support, in all fields. Unless we come back to our senses in order to renounce all the traditional leaders and reject sectarianism then we should not complain once this essentially noble experiment comes crashing down. It is not too late to save the day but such drastic action requires more than wishful thinking. Are we up to it? Time will tell but don’t forget that time is running out.

Human Development in the Arab World

The Human Development Index for the year 2010 was released by the UNDP on the 4th of November. This is a grand issue. It reintroduces to the public both Mahbub Al Haq and Amartya Sen whose ideas and enthusiasm for a multidimensional development index resulted in the HDI in 1990. Ever since then this measure has continued to grow and evolve into the very informative data set that it has become. During the past twenty years this measure has become so popular and common that it is hard to find a textbook of economic development that does not teach it in lieu of the rather simplistic approach that used to rank countries by the level of income per capita.

It is especially noteworthy that the last iteration of the all successful HDI has introduced a number of improvements on the older methodology. It has become quite simple to rank countries by their non-income HDI is one is so inclined and to even rank them by an Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index. The newest edition has also introduced a Multifaceted Measure of Poverty that incorporates many of the seminal ideas of Mr. Sen, a Noble laureate in Economics.

So how did the Arab group of countries fare? Not so good. The Arab states as a group were below the world average in every single category. Life expectancy at birth averaged 69.3 years for the Arab states when it was at 69.3 for the world while the mean years of education for the world was 7.4 years compared to only 5.7 years for the typical Arab citizen. Even the per capita income measured on a PPP basis was only $7861 compared to a global average of $10,631.

A close examination of the individual Arab states’ individual statistics is quite revealing and at times even surprising. It might be easy to explain the good performance of the top ranked two Arab states; UAE (32) and Qatar (38); as a byproduct of their high per capita income but that would not be the case for Bahrain whose income per person is less than 10% above that of Saudi Arabia but yet Bahrain outranked its larger neighbor by 16 (Bahrain 39, Saudi Arabia 55). Then there is Libya whose performance among the Arab countries would rank it close to the top of the heap on a Non income basis. The performance of Jordan is even more compelling in the group of Arab countries. Although its per capita income was a modest $5956 which is below that of Algeria ,Egypt and not that much above that of Syria, yet it outranked each of them (Jordan (82), Algeria (84), Egypt(101), Syria(111)).

The conclusion of the relative performance of countries during 2010 is rather revealing. The Arab world is still mired in inefficiencies and poor human capital. It is apparent that high income is helpful but is not sufficient. Many other countries all throughout the world had managed to outperform us by a wide margin despite their lack of a natural endowment similar to oil. Is it a stretch to conclude our authoritarian political systems are our major impediment to change and to modernity? When would we wake up from our slumber and demand our individual human rights to self expression personal freedom and responsible government?

The following is the ranking of the Arab countries as per the 2010 HDI report: Please note that Lebanon, Iraq, Palestinian Authority and Somalia are not ranked due to lack of data. My personal estimate is that Lebanon would have been around 70 since its data resembles that of Iran.

…………………………………………………..Life Expectancy …….Mean Years….Personal Income…….Non Income
Rank…..Country……………Index………….at Birth………………Education…….$(PPP)…………………..HDI Index
32………..UAE…………………0.815……………77.7……………………9.2……………….58006…………………..0.774
38………..Qatar……………….0.803…………..76.0……………………7.3……………….79426…………………..0.737
39………..Bahrain…………….0.801…………..76.0…………………..9.4………………..26664…………………..0.809
47………..Kuwait……………..0.771……………77.9…………………..6.1………………..55719…………………..0.714
53………..Libya………………..0.755……………74.5…………………..7.3………………..17068…………………..0.775
55………..Saudi Arabia…….0.752……………73.3…………………..7.8………………..24726…………………..0.742
81………..Tunisia……………..0.683……………74.3…………………..6.5………………….7979…………………..0.729
82………..Jordan……………..0.682…………….73.1………………….8.6…………………..5956……………………0.755
84………..Algeria……………..0.677…………….72.9………………….7.2…………………..8320…………………..0.716
101……….Egypt……………….0.620…………….70.5………………….6.5………………….5889……………………0.657
111……….Syria…………………0.589……………74.6…………………..4.9………………….4760…………………….0.627
114………Morocco……………0.567……………71.8…………………..4.4………………….4628…………………….0.594
133…….. Yemen………………0.439……………63.9…………………..2.5………………….2387…………………….0.453
154………Sudan………………..0.379……………58.9………………….2.9……………………2051……………………0.373

Av.Arab States.............0.588...........69.1............5.7..............7861...............0.610

WORLD....................0.624.............69.3...........7.4.............10631..............0.663

NOTE:

15....Israel.............0.872...........81.2............11.9...............27831...............0.916

Civil Rights of Non-Moslems In The Arab World

Logical internal consistency is a fundamental characteristic of a model that has withstood the rigours of investigation both empirical and otherwise. The advocates of an internally inconsistent model, especially one that suffers of an apparent logical fallacy are often chided for their position and for their inability to promote rational thinking. Such is the case when those that make a habit of disregarding say the rights of nature; make an issue of the failure of their neighbours to act in an environmentally friendly manner. Of course the corporation that seeks governmental relief is not in a position to be taken seriously when it opposes the extension of such a program to cover its competitors.

The above fatal fallacy could easily be avoided through the incorporation of the ideas embodied in the principle of the Golden Rule. This simple but profound idea has been traced to practically all cultures all over the world, although one of its most popular and common manifestations are encompassed in the saying: Do unto others what you would like others to do unto you. As it is obvious it would not be difficult to suggest that this ethics of reciprocity is the foundation upon which human rights and fair treatments are based.

What often goes unnoticed, in the Arab world, is that this simple but yet elegant idea about justice and equality has been traced as far as the middle kingdom of Egypt, 19th century BC, as well as the Code of Hammurabi not to mention the Torah and Confucius. Furthermore it is also important to note that The Parliament of World Religion during its centenary held in 1993 adopted the idea of reciprocity found in the Golden Rule as the common belief in all religions. This document of Global Ethics declared to the world:

We are interdependent….We take individual responsibility for all we do. All our decisions, actions, and failures to act have consequences.
We must treat others as we wish others to treat us. We make a commitment to respect life and dignity, individuality and diversity, so that every person is treated humanely, without exception. We must have patience and acceptance….
We consider humankind a family…We commit ourselves to a culture of non-violence, respect, justice, and peace. We shall not oppress, injure, torture, or kill other human beings, forsaking violence as a means of settling differences.

We in the Arab world seem to have conveniently decided not to adopt and apply the above principle despite the admonition by the prophet Mohammad, PBUH, that such a principle of respect and reciprocity to others is essential as can be seen clearly in more than one Hadith:

“None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” An Nawawi

"No man is a true believer unless he desires for his brother that, what he desires for himself." Forty Hadith

“Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you”. Muhammad, The Farewell Sermon on Mount Arafat in Mecca.

“Woe to those . . . who, when they have to receive by measure from men, exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due”
—Qur’an (Surah 83, "The Unjust,"

The principle of justice and reciprocity is as seminal to Islam as it is to other cultures and we choose to neglect it at our peril. This is not the place to describe in full details the practices in separate countries against non Moslems.But it should be clear that when we close our eyes on discriminatory practices by our neighbours and friends then that amounts to an acquiescence in these wrongful and hurtful practices.

The Arab world has paid dearly for the inequities that its non Moslem population is subjected to. Why is it not evident that the time of the dhimmis is gone forever and that if we consider ourselves to be part of this global community then no one has the right to deny any other person the right to self expression and the freedom of thought and religious belief. Why can we not see that when we discriminate against others then we automatically give up our right to complain when others discriminate against our fellow co religionists? Saudi Arabia could not possibly object to a rule preventing school girls from wearing a Moslem headdress when a non Moslem is not allowed to practice her religion openly in the kingdom. Egypt was not in a position to complain against the Swiss rule that regulates the size and location of minarets when even minor repairs to churches in Egypt require almost presidential approval. The Arab league could not join in the important dialogue about the advisability of building a Mosque close to ground zero in Manhattan when many Arab countries have strict prohibitions against the construction of Churches and other non Moslem houses of worship.

Yes this is a different world than it was 1500 years ago in many respects but the principles of justice and universal humanity and equality are still the same. Many of the Arab governments that claim that they are only doing the work of Allah and that of his Prophet, PBUH, would do well to review the treaty of Medina which L Ali Khan argues could serve as the basis of treating minorities justly and offering them equal rights under Islam. And most importantly we cannot disapprove of the acts of others when we sanction these same acts either in our countries or we are silent when these same human rights violations are committed by our neighbourly countries. There ought to be no prejudice or partiality in civil rights.