WHATEVER the outcome of the tumultuous events in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, it is clear that the region is entering a new phase in its history. This era of change, five years after the uprisings known as The Arab Spring and a century after some Arabs started thinking of their independence from Ottoman and European rule, is also a defining moment of a new diplomacy of hope. For it is in such historic moments that practitioners of politics and intellectual elites – Arab, Turkish and Iranian – have an opportunity to prove whether they have acquired the necessary strength to help transform their societies in a democratic direction.

The role of complexity management in any society is indeed one of the elements crucial to its peaceful development. Yet, for many decades the Middle East has been held back by its political and intellectual elites, who seem to have surrendered their critical independence to the dogma of ideologies such as Marxism-Leninism and Islamism. As intellectuals in the Middle East construct overarching narratives of modernization – whether framed in terms of liberalism, nationalism, fascism or socialism – ahead of democracy, what could appear as ‘oppositional’ intellectual practice was made to serve the quasi-theological dogmas of states and party or movement politics. These narratives did not succeed even on their own terms, in part because they were anchored in western ideologies and did not find any deep roots in Middle Eastern societies.

The unfolding of their monumental distortions and failures on the ground opened the way for Islamism as the only credible option. The result is that these elites have been less agents of hope and change than handmaidens of power, who have merely reinterpreted local political realities in accord with their ideological purposes rather than putting ethical and critical issues at the heart of their civic and public activities. As a result, whereby many elites in the MENA region became the icons of discontented, disillusioned and frustrated generations, in turn allowing themselves to be used by political parties and Muslim clergy as instruments of organizational power and political control.

Instead of advancing a politics of hope through a better understanding of the complex ground reality, they chose to spread ideological messages: a role that reflected their view of themselves as guardians of the ‘true’ vocation of socialist, nationalist or religious movements, as against those they saw as corrupt politicians willing to make unacceptable political compromises. The direct implication of this trend is that a culture of death and hopelessness has taken root in the Middle East.

 

Middle East rulers and elites have failed their nations. Much of the Middle East lies in ruins, its heritage being further destroyed and looted by a sadistic cult of the Islamic State. ISIS was not just born out of the collapse of the government and authority in Iraq and Syria. A product of death and hopelessness, it has been in the making for decades, a grim announcement of the last stage of decomposition of the host societies, ISIS is the last fart of a decaying corpse. To understand the origin of ISIS one has to consider the partitioning of the Middle East. A fact often not remembered is that the artificial borders of most countries in the Middle East were drawn up at the closing stages of the First World War, without involvement of the affected people and their elites.

The partitioning of the Middle East served the interests of the big powers; the result was not a forging of new nations based on dialogue, interaction and a social contract. If anything, the outcome was a miscarriage, resulting in perpetual conflict and violence. What unites Middle East countries most is a common fear and common enemy; a majority are disconnected from both their history and their neighbours, struggling to create common values, as their rulers take the easy path of forging a national identity based on fear and isolation rather than fostering dialogue and respecting diversity.

It is unlikely that such a flawed beginning can result in prosperity and progress. In fact, despite its vast resources and enormous windfall from a resource boom, most of the Middle East is still lagging in important human development indicators, unable to reduce inequality for specific demographic groups, most importantly for youth and women. ‘Otherness’ is so systemic and institutionalized that it has become a part of national identity, such that often who you are is based on who you are not! Consequently, there is a catastrophic absence of dialogue and tolerance. In such a poisonous environment, talking about rebuilding of societies would be fruitless as a dead entity cannot be brought back to life. Therefore, just pumping additional resources into these countries under their current political structure and climate would be a mistake, as this would at best restore social orders that provided the ground for the spiral of death and decadence in the first place.

 

What is lacking in the Middle East is a comprehensive plan that outlines a hopeful future and articulates values that would serve as the foundations for expanding possibilities for the people. Hope is the best and only antidote to the barbarism of ISIS.

Alas, too many obstacles still remain in the way of transformation and change. In fact, it can be argued that most rulers and governments in the Middle East are busy establishing their dominance over the region, either by war or through propping up proxies. Rampant militarism has left no space for planning a better future for people. It is unfortunate that attending elite military colleges in the West, rather than studying philosophy and law, carries more prestige among ruling elites in the MENA. Such a militaristic perspective reduces people to expendable soldiers, is intolerant of dissent and often demands nothing but absolute loyalty and obedience.

Most countries in the region are ruled by an elite class that vies for dominance instead of creating a trans-formative environment that would generate hope for a better future for their people and the region. A concept of governance as the authoritative process to resolve differences in a non-violent manner and as a facilitator of exchange is not truly understood far less practised in most of the region. It is evident that no single country can enjoy a sustained and prolonged period of wealth creation and happiness while neglecting the rest of the region; erecting walls and barbed wires will not keep the violence away from safe havens. For too long hopelessness and isolation have entrapped generations of people with no prospect of a better life and a way out of their misery, which has only increased the tendency toward violence.

 

A new hopeful plan depends on expanding the space for dialogue and inclusion of citizens in the change process, as top-down plans crafted in backroom deals are doomed to fail. Defining a new social harmony based on engagement and inclusion and replenishing the moral capital of elites is the best guaranty against the brutal and dominating social order of the past. The first step in rebuilding societies in the MENA would be the resurrection of hope and replacing the culture of otherness and fear with empathy, recognition and collaboration; only then can societies and individuals regain their lost confidence.

What unites citizens cannot be based on language, looks, custom or even religion, but their interest in deep multidimensional exchange with each other. In other words, what really unites us is a deeper interest in our differences. The concept of citizenship and individual responsibility needs to be internalized and made part of the public discourse; as a first step, our elites need to be awakened from their long slumber and assume their roles again. For too long the elites in the Middle East have taken the easy path of being alarmist and riding the popular wave. It is easy and irresponsible to be a fear-monger and populist; what is harder is to be transformative by changing public discourse based on recognition, empathy and tolerance.

Today, the public discourse in large parts of the region is intellectually bankrupt, a situation for which all parties should share the blame – indifferent and passive citizenry, intolerant and autocratic rulers and detached and irresponsible elites. No wonder that there has been so little resistance to the barbarity of ISIS (heroic effort of Kurds in Kobani being a shining exception), as confused and disoriented societies tired of the brutality of their rulers, sometimes crave the ‘law and order’ approach of gangsters like ISIS (regardless of their barbarism).

It can be argued that the Middle East is trapped in a state of meaninglessness; systematic efforts to turn dissent into otherness have resulted in an uniformity of nothingness, which may appear as obedient and docile but Zombie-like, is devoid of any meaning and creativity. Therefore, to break out of the vicious cycle of death and hopelessness, societies must redefine themselves, drawing on new concepts and values that promote change and transformation and are tolerant of outliers. The citizenry must be de-zombified with an antidote of hope and harmony. One can only survive by being together, not as a meaningless mass but active, autonomous and enabled beings.

 

Most efforts in pacifying and transforming the Middle East have been based on the use of brute force. The usual approach to social engineering in the MENA involves a toppling of the existing establishments (often through force) while trying to deal with the emotional and cultural complexities using economic measures, even though they are usually one-dimensional and thus likely to fail. The reason that most efforts to transform the Middle East have resulted in failure is a lack of comprehension and appreciation for prevailing social norms, on the one hand, and an absence of figures with sufficient moral authority that can lead and sustain the transformative process, on the other.

It goes without saying that when citizens do not engage in a national dialogue, genuine transformation will not be possible. On the other hand, an absence of emotional and intellectual dimensions prevent transformational discourse from taking root. A national dialogue and discourse is contingent upon people speaking a language of change and hope. Without a proper discourse, the public space will continue to be dominated by those who resist change, namely those whose dominant position is at risk, which is usually the entrenched establishment. Therefore, it is important to craft a message of change, in other words, national dialogue and organic transformation based on collaboration and exchange should be the preferred approach.

 

Social engineering disregards the multidimensional nature of our social being. We are more than mere economic entities; the fabric of society is based on its emotional and intellectual dimensions and exchange. A lack of understanding of the social context is likely to have disastrous results, since external intervention is usually perceived to be a threat and thus opposed by most individuals and institutions. A single dimension exchange model which is solely based on economic measures fails to create a proper language and discourse in the society, which is a prerequisite for changing minds. Without meaningful language and discourse, the polity will remain mute and handicapped. The most potent tool of public policy is language and without it change is unlikely to happen.

In the Middle East most media are either directly managed and controlled by the state or influenced through special interest and corporate conglomerates. They usually echo and amplify the views of the establishment and are conformist while censoring any signs of dissent. In such a situation it is not surprising to find that the elite remains disconnected from the people. It can be argued that a prolonged absence of open intellectual exchange in society generates atrophy, leaving a void that is usually filled up by raw emotion and reactionary responses that ultimately are a recipe for violence.

 

The question about who can influence and enrich the public discourse remains. The answer lies in the ability to contribute to political vocabulary, transforming it with new concepts and, when required, shifting to a new paradigm. The elites, including artists, philosophers and social activists must be at the forefront of public debate, steering policy away from populist measures. They should continuously challenge the status quo and question the role of government and institutions in facilitating change to ensure a better future. It is important to note that one of the biggest obstacles for change in the Middle East is the false belief in protecting the status quo in the name of tradition. In fact, the most entrenched and regressive powers usually portray themselves as ‘servants of tradition’ and yet demand nothing but absolute acquiescence to their corrupt rule.

Change cannot entail establishing a new order while demanding thoughtless obedience and conformity; change is a positive value and only when celebrated and practiced by both the society and its ruling elites and thinkers, can it have a positive impact on moving the society ahead. Transformation is a prerequisite for innovation and growth. It can be argued that the role of artists, philosophers and intellectuals is to challenge and question the accepted norms and beliefs of the society. But across the Middle East, there is a lack of coherence in the call for transformation. The Arab Spring failed to produce the desired sustained transformative process, which in the long-term could have led to a democratic and free society (with the exception of Tunisia). The coup in Egypt against the elected government of Muhammad Morsi demonstrated a lack of maturity on part of civil society and the inelasticity of social institutions. What is worrisome in the Middle East is the lack of recognition that change is a continuous process. Most elites and politicians look at change only as a means to topple the establishment and grab the levers of power. Such an interpretation of change is only helpful if the subject is baby diapers.

 

Therefore, it is important to use every opportunity to nourish and replenish the reservoir of hope. Diplomacy, when applied correctly, is the best exchange mechanism to deliver hope. Establishing good relations should not be only limited to the economic dimension. Many rich sheikhdoms of the Middle East, despite their deep pockets, have failed to create a hopeful and meaningful future for their youth. Hopefulness is contingent upon a meaningful and harmonious balance between individuals and society, a balance that should enable the citizens to express themselves intellectually and emotionally, without fear. Middle East rulers and elites should be judged based on their ability to create a hopeful and meaningful future for their people. Therefore, it is important to shift the language of diplomacy to one that demands and promotes hope. However, it is equally important to note that this transformation cannot take place without the emergence of figures with sufficient moral authority. Therefore, it is important to press for acceptance of dissent and more social freedoms as a key measure in dealing with the region.

The geopolitical developments in the Middle East pose a new challenge to public intellectuals about their role in relation to the democratic evolution of their societies. Do they have anything more to offer than political opinions or a contract with power; can they also respond to changing circumstances with an ethical engagement that allows them – via practical reason rather than as political agents – to struggle against all forms of tyranny? Indeed, the true struggle of public intellectuals in the Middle East today is a moral and non-violent one against injustice and oppression, and for democracy. This struggle requires courage, and cannot be surrendered to any political elite, for it demands moving to a higher ground beyond particularistic interests in order to create and support new democratic spheres.

 

The question of nonviolence is indeed crucial. As the events in Tunis (2011), Tehran (2009) and Cairo’s Tahrir Square (2 February 2011) demonstrated, violence needs to be tamed and transcended for societies to achieve democratic maturity. The East European dissidents of the 1980s, in their struggle against communist authoritarian regimes, turned to the concept of hope. What East European intellectuals and civic actors understood by hope was not just a teleological concept of awaiting a better future, at best wishful thinking, but also the courage of giving meaning to change while changing themselves through self-organization and institution-making in the public sphere. It was only through such a process that limits were placed on the power of the state and a democratic space constructed separate from the state and its ideological institutions.

What united Tunisians and Egyptians in their democratic uprisings was an urge for freedom from interference and a struggle against the concentration of arbitrary power. In so doing, they were constantly negotiating their desire for democratic governance based on public accountability. Actually, the democratic revival in the Arab Spring did not happen necessarily through political ideologies in search of post-independence models of state building (for example Kemalist or Arab nationalist), but more in terms of a shared adherence to civic values that were fully compatible with the necessary pluralism of civil society. Yet, civil society structures in some Arab countries (as in the Persian Gulf region and Libya) were not sufficiently robust to contain ethnic and ideological conflicts.

 

Many analysts have failed to imagine what models of social, political and economic organization could evolve in the near future around the Middle East and the Maghreb. Pessimism about the prospects for the post-Islamist Arab world is centred on this issue. In Western Europe, civil society took centuries to evolve from the bottom up, while Arab societies need democracy immediately. This said, without civil society, democracy would be lame. But without democracy, civil society will be blind.

It is still too early to speculate about what the future of wars and conflicts around the Middle East might hold, and whether intellectual and civic movements in the region will lead to the emergence of democratic regimes. Though free and democratic elections are not likely to be held any time soon, in many parts of the Arab world and in Iran, the spread of a diplomacy of hope between these states and the outside world would unquestionably be a positive development for the future empowerment of civil societies in the Middle East. However, were the question of hope to be placed once again on the agenda, intellectuals would have a vital role to play as part of the change that they seek – this time, free of the shackles of the past.