Not just coercion, sham democracy too

The administration and leadership of the Arab States, may be representing a Muslim majority who inhabit their states, but the leadership is at odds with the Muslim majority, and the Muslim majority are at odds with their own identity. Why cannot the Muslim majority contribute to the workings of the state, in a manner, which enjoys the confidence of the rulers? The rulers of the Arab States, are worried about the circumstances within and without the state. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless operator, in some ways, it is true, but are the other Arab States, comfortable in their interaction with each other, or with the West? What do the leaders have to fear, if the people are given a say on the betterment of their own lives? If the Arab people are given a bigger stake in the operations pertaining to their lives, then they will try to make their own lives more prosperous and peaceful, because this is the average person on the globe aspires to. The Arab State is acutely conscious of its interaction with other Arab States, and also with other non Arab States. Is the Arab State as insecure, as the West, that in it's interaction with the rest of the world, things will go more awry than not? The west has accomplishments in science and technology, and the west is also relatively prosperous, as compared with the Arab State, according to some parameters. It is said, that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the globe. The new members of the religion of Islam are not members of the affluent western nations. So, the people of Islam are perhaps, or perhaps not, finding kinship with the less affluent of the world population. How does this behavior compensate for the relative non development in their eyes? There are beacons of prosperity in Asia, like Malaysia, and also Indonesia, to a relative extent, which predominantly have Muslim populations. What is the difference between these nations and the Arab Nations? The difference in the mode of interaction with other states in the proximity? The Asian continent is far from being a region of stability. There are many problems faced by the nations of Asia. But, Asia has a democracy in a nation like Bangladesh, which is earnestly Muslim. The West does not voice adverse opinion about Bangladesh, because it is a nation governed by democratic institutions. Not so long ago, Bangladesh was not so democratic, under President Ershad, according to many people, perhaps. So, in passing, one can say, that the Arab states are not comfortable with themselves, or with the rest of the world, which is what The Economist wanted to point out, in the first place.

The administration and leadership of the Arab States, may be representing a Muslim majority who inhabit their states, but the leadership is at odds with the Muslim majority, and the Muslim majority are at odds with their own identity. Why cannot the Muslim majority contribute to the workings of the state, in a manner, which enjoys the confidence of the rulers? The rulers of the Arab States, are worried about the circumstances within and without the state. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless operator, in some ways, it is true, but are the other Arab States, comfortable in their interaction with each other, or with the West? What do the leaders have to fear, if the people are given a say on the betterment of their own lives? If the Arab people are given a bigger stake in the operations pertaining to their lives, then they will try to make their own lives more prosperous and peaceful, because this is the average person on the globe aspires to. The Arab State is acutely conscious of its interaction with other Arab States, and also with other non Arab States. Is the Arab State as insecure, as the West, that in it's interaction with the rest of the world, things will go more awry than not? The west has accomplishments in science and technology, and the west is also relatively prosperous, as compared with the Arab State, according to some parameters. It is said, that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the globe. The new members of the religion of Islam are not members of the affluent western nations. So, the people of Islam are perhaps, or perhaps not, finding kinship with the less affluent of the world population. How does this behavior compensate for the relative non development in their eyes? There are beacons of prosperity in Asia, like Malaysia, and also Indonesia, to a relative extent, which predominantly have Muslim populations. What is the difference between these nations and the Arab Nations? The difference in the mode of interaction with other states in the proximity? The Asian continent is far from being a region of stability. There are many problems faced by the nations of Asia. But, Asia has a democracy in a nation like Bangladesh, which is earnestly Muslim. The West does not voice adverse opinion about Bangladesh, because it is a nation governed by democratic institutions. Not so long ago, Bangladesh was not so democratic, under President Ershad, according to many people, perhaps. So, in passing, one can say, that the Arab states are not comfortable with themselves, or with the rest of the world, which is what The Economist wanted to point out, in the first place.