Never Enough Saudi Malarkey Department

When the Arabs first attempted reform, it was under the flag of Nasser and his grand ideas of a pan-Arab modernity, strongly independent from West and East alike, strong and self-assured. This vision did not have terrorism in it, not even as they fought off the Israelis. Nasser was the architect for an Arab worldview with all the plusses of modern civilization.

There are many reasons why this gilded vision for all Arabs failed. But I dare posit that the most influential of these reasons, the core of their failure, was an inability on the part of the governments to accept the sacrifices required to become a modern country.

As Gorbachev found out firsthand, the road to reform may lead to a reformer's own removal from the steering wheel, not just the replacement of the maps of policy. Rich, successful, happy countries require openness of its society in order to cultivate the best ideas, internally as well as externally. Such openness requires a press that is capable of expressing disapproval for the regime. It requires an acceptance of protestors, the willingness to allow ideas unpopular with the government. In short, one has to be able to take criticism.

Iran, a society used to freedom of speech and press, became so disgusted at the the hypocrisy of their Shah that they rejected the Western world that accepted the Shah and made his reign possible. The revolution, while having a strong anti-American flavor, was only superficially about the West. More importantly, it was about achieving the common Iranian's dream of having a representative society. The Ayatollahs claimed this could only be achieved through a purity of Islam alien to Sunni or Shi'ite thought, and a flood of young men followed this pure vision until the Ayatollahs could seize control of the country through ownership of the country's resources. Now many of those young men are struggling to undo the effects of their earlier zeal by trying to open the society, an effort fought viciously by the still-powerful Ayatollahs.

All Islamic countries would benefit from Iran's example. But especially in Arab countries where Sheikhs and military dictators hold the reigns, it would seem that the powerful fear dissent, perhaps realizing it would mean the end of their power. In the same breath they admit their contempt for the very Westernization they claim they enjoy. There is no half-way point; by closing off their societies they only create a gap between government and people--people such as Osama bin Laden, who, despite his money, was no Shiekh's son and eager to demonstrate it by criticizing the realm. His subsequent exile from Saudia Arabia turned him into a terrorist kingpin.

If Arabs had governments that accepted criticism, this country wouldn't have become a target of repressed frustrations. It's time for the Saudis, and for all other repressive governments in the Middle East, to own up to their failures.