A contingent of Arab political culture incessantly beats the drum of rationality, secularism, modernity, and enlightenment. Some elements of this contingency slander “Arabs” and “Muslims” - without distinction - for not having adopted these values. Others speak of these values as though they suddenly “dawn on” societies or “burst” into the social world. In rhetoric inspired by epics, which in turn draw from nature’s turbulent actions, they argue that history only begins after the legend starts to unfold.
Meanwhile, a third group hurls insults at the “West” for supposedly preventing us from becoming modern, rational, and secular. Often, these three voices come out of the same mouth, while they (poorly) present the issue in stringently binary terms: progress and backwardness, civilization and lagging behind, transformation and stagnation... These arguments are firmly grounded in texts. However, the impact of texts has its limitations, and it is the facts, to a large extent, that dictate how we interpret them. To give one of several examples, despite religion’s negative stance on poetry, Arab societies have one of the highest proportions of poets in the world.
The significance of these values (rationality, secularism, and enlightenment) can’t be disputed, nor can we deny that they must take root in the Arab region if it is to ever progress and advance. Nonetheless, constantly rotating around this demand has no real impact, nor does it make rationality and secularism even an ounce more popular. Indeed, verbose preaching, after a failed attempt or two, often leaves the preacher declaring his despair or advocating the trajectory of coup d’etats, miliary rule, and security measures, under the pretext that taking this path would allow those values to triumph. Sometimes, they bet on an Ataturk-like figure bringing an end to the era of darkness and ushering in an era of light.
It very much seems, and an immense number of past experiences demonstrate this, that it does not “dawn on” societies to become rational and secular. Indeed, rationalization and secularization do not happen in a “burst” - they are long processes with complex dynamics. As for imposing progress from above through the use of force, a coup, or a charismatic leader, it is inherently deeply contradictory. Moreover, precedent suggests that the progress made under these circumstances remains superficial and does not last long. The fates of Ataturk’s Türkiye, the Shah’s Iran, and Amanullah Khan’s Afghanistan... are merely different fruits of the woeful harvest that this approach leaves behind.
Now, broad popular alignment with these values must emerge as the culmination of an intellectual movement that pushes society and draws it into an open and permanent public debate. How can one hope for such an intellectual alignment while security and military apparatuses prohibit thinking in the first place, only permitting the kind of “thinking” that leads to the endorsement of the broad decisions of that political regime? Of course, we can always indulge in translating some “avant guard” ideas and parroting others, but they hardly have any relevance to our state of affairs.
In turn, confining thought in this manner is reinforced by the rising prevalence of a view of the world as a battleground of enemies, conspiracies, and plotters, who are little more than modern formulations of demons and jinn. Another worldview sees our planet as a stage on which the same scenes of war and battle are repeatedly performed, thereby taking away any justification for novelty. Under this assumption about how the world works, only preparing for these confrontations can be justified.
On top of that, broad mass alignment with these values entails the popular majority becoming convinced that adopting these values would confer more rights, benefits, and freedoms to the population. From experience, we know that coup regimes, be they headed by the army or security apparatuses, not only suppress freedoms but also impoverish the population, turning the daily struggle for survival into the most widespread and pressing concern.
Naturally, reconciling the majorities with these values hinges on pulling these concepts’ fiercest opponents into the political sphere, on the condition that they renounce violence, recognize the legitimacy of the political process and adhere to its rules. This is even more true when those regimes, which is often the case, paint themselves with a sectarian or ethnic brush that excludes others and alienates broad segments of the population from the modernity, rationality, and secularism that those regimes use as pretexts.
Moreover, the European experience - the standard by which these things are evaluated - demonstrates that it is difficult for the alignment being sought to emerge if it is not part of a broad historical upward shift. Indeed, secularization and rationalization accompanied or crowned major developments that our region has only seen the opposite of. True, we are not obliged to discover a second America, and no one is asking to reconnect and reunite the various segments of the world. However, measures like isolating our countries from the rest of the world only fit into the course of action needed to ensure the flourishing of enlightenment and rationality if we want them to flourish as they do in North Korea.
Collectively, all these factors make posing the question of political power a pressing need and a necessary, albeit not sufficient, entry point for resolving the issue. The fear is that much of the current noise surrounding rationality, secularism, enlightenment, and similar matters only seeks to put this very earthly issue behind us and shoot bullets into the heavens.
