The end of the "-isms" in Middle Eastern Politics

How altruistic of him, "He said the GCC had developed the plan to prevent a nuclear arms race developing in the Gulf". Why just the other day, Mubarak also announced his intentions to build more nuclear reactors in Egypt, citing energy concerns for his country. What could have caused this sudden concern for the welfare of state and nation amongst these rulers? Does anybody believe that either Egypt or Saudi Arabia are doing anything but the will of the United States? It seems America has decided that if it can't have the Middle East, nobody will. I do not condemn the United States for doing what is in it's interests, but I do condemn many of our rulers from Morrocco to Oman for their incompetence and lack of vision.

The case of Egypt in particular pains me, especially when I compare it's role in the Arab world before Nasser's death and afterwards, with the betrayal of Anwar al Sadat. As one Arab documentary maker once said, "Sadat did indeed follow in the same line as Nasser, but with an eraser". Mubarak is firmly in the tradition of Sadat and not with Nasser. I don't like Nasser or the nationalism which he fostered and that damaged the region, but I have to hand it to him that he was indeed an Arab leader of outstanding calibre and one we could be proud of regardless of his many failings. To quote from the late Ismail Sabri Abdallah, “He’s really a Shakespearean character: when he was powerful, he was not intellectually mature, but when he matured after 1967, he was no longer powerful.” Can we say the same for any of our current Arab leaders? A grudging respect even if we don't admire them? No, it seems not even that is possible unfortunately.

I recognise that politics is a filthy game, that corruption, oppression and even murder come hand in hand with maintaining power. Yet even with this looser (and more controversial) standard, we find that none currently hold up under any scrutiny. None seem to know when to make a promise and when to break it, when it is necessary to shed blood and when to hold back your hounds. As Machiavelli would put it, a prince would need Fortuna and Virtus. Nasser in my opinion had Virtus by the bucketloads, but his Fortuna was non-existent since he was the ruler of Egypt, an impoverished country with no natural resources. Instead the best our generation can look back to is a cruel Saddam Hussein, brave indeed, and gutsy, but as one commentator called him "Half Donald Duck, Half Don Corleone", which is not what we need.

Today we find no Virtus but abundant Fortuna in an Arab world that is better connected, prouder of it's Arab and Islamic identity and better educated and motivated. We are not addicted to defeat, only sleeping. We are beyond modernism, beyond post modernism and peer to peer democratic grass roots movements. We have run out of "-isms" and the fools that peddle them to us like wonder pills that cure all. The world sometimes see people who inspire and motivate where once there are people just like us. There is similarity between people such as Che Guevara, Khomeini and many others like them. They animate and breathe life to a machine which continues running long after they themselves are dead, they need no fuel for this engine, no oil. No "-ism" can provide this, no post modern nation building exercise in "citizenry" no liberal or secularising experiment or "Arabism" can drive people the way these men have. To take the same people and transform them into something nobler, something with belief, that is true leadership and vision. Virtus and Fortuna.