Understanding Muslim demonstrations

The demonstrations that erupted in Egypt, spread to Libya and then to other Muslim-majority countries, Pakistan to Indonesia, have sown violence and death. Diplomats and civilians murdered; violent rejection and hatred of the United-States: tensions are running high. Is a clash of civilizations, a conflict between the West and Islam, on the agenda?

While the Arab uprisings of the last two years seemed to show that Middle-Eastern society as a whole cherished such values as freedom, justice and democracy, today the wave of violence sweeping the Islamic world points to quite the opposite. Because of an islamophobic and racist video, Muslims have suddenly taken leave of their senses to vent their hostility toward the U.S. and its government (which is not responsible for the video in question). During a recent visit to the United States, intellectuals and journalists asked me: weren’t we been misled, during the Arab awakening, into thinking that Muslims could actually embrace democratic ideals?

It cannot be repeated often enough: beyond the media coverage that magnifies events, those who take part in violent demonstrations are a tiny minority. It would be wrong to imagine that a few thousand violent demonstrators represent Muslims, when millions took to the streets in a disciplined and non-violent manner to bring down dictatorships.

Violence against embassies and civilians must be categorically condemned. At the same time, we must attempt to understand why such events occur. Above and beyond the sincere sense of humiliation widely shared by Muslims who feel insulted and belittled by the video, there exist deeper issues within Muslim-majority societies that cannot be avoided. Over the last five years, literalist Salafi or Wahhabi groups have become much more visible, active and politicized as they seek to play a determining role in their countries’ future. The Afghan model—when such organizations supported the original Mujahidine against the Soviet Union in the 1990s—may now be replicating itself in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, in northern Mali and even in Asia. A minority has turned toward more radical groups, as in Mali, but the majority has insinuated itself into mainstream politics, quick to promote a form of religious populism that plays on emotions, demonizes the West—above all the United States—and actively undermines the democratic process, as in Tunisia and Egypt.

The Salafis were the first to call for demonstrations, even before violence flared. The same pattern could be observed in Lebanon, where Hezbollah’s Sheikh Hassan Nasrullah brought his followers into the streets, attempting to surmount the division between Sunni and Shia by showing that the latter are just as dedicated to the Prophet, and at the same time bidding to seize the leadership of opposition to the U.S. in defence of pan-Islamic dignity.

What we are witnessing are struggles over power and religious authority that will have a lasting impact on the future of the Middle East. Between the Sunni themselves (literalists, reformers, Sufis, etc.) and between Sunni and Shia, there are deep divisions that could, with a single spark, become a conflagration.

A new form of populism is being used to mobilize the crowd, to feed into and direct its fury. We must realize, while never justifying violence, that the peoples of the Global South, whose lives are warped by political and social frustration, can easily be carried away by raw emotion. Poverty, unemployment, corruption and violence are their daily lot, against which they resist by invoking their religion. And now, those whom they perceive as the privileged citizens of the West mock their faith and ridicule the figure of the Prophet, an object of love and reverence. 

Tomorrow: Anti-Westernism peaked

It should not be too difficult to understand why certain groups are tempted by to encourage their co-religionists to reject the West. During recent controversies in Denmark, the Netherlands and the United States, the Muslims citizens of those countries expressed their dismay in a calm and democratic manner. Socio-economic factors make it easier to understand these troubles. Blaming Islam and the Muslims does not.

We must face reality. The majority of Muslims in the Global South have a negative image of the United States and of the West. They do not express their feelings by demonstrating or by violence (which are, I repeat, the work of a minority), a deeply rooted lack of trust persists. Many Americans are surprised, for they believed that they had supported the Arab peoples during their recent uprising. But the Arabs have a longer memory, and a broader view: for decades the U.S. supported and protected dictators. The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan remains critical. American policy has d and continues to profound animosity. The humiliating treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, which has remained open despite the promises of then-candidate Barack Obama, is engraved in memory.

America’s permanent and unilateral support for Israel is another reason for this massive lack of trust. Whatever the president’s initial good intentions, Arabs have been left with the impression that the Zionist lobby is too powerful, and that friendship extends no farther than fine words and pious wishes. For more than seventy years now, the U.S. has acted unilaterally in pursuit of its interests and its national security in the Middle-East, defended Israel unconditionally, and exploited the Arab countries and their peoples.

Is this perception totally wrong? American (and European) policies are fraught with contradictions; both are facing increasingly serious challenges. Their main regional economic allies remain Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain (which no one ever accused of being democratic) whose religious institutions finance the self-same Salafi organizations that promote anti-Americanism in the streets of Cairo and Tunis. As the region enters an era of democratic transition—though prudence is in orderit may well be that anti-American emotions have peaked.

These emotions are nothing new; but the world has changed. New economic actors like China, India, Russia, Brazil, Turkey and South Africa are moving into the Middle-Eastern market. As the world’s economic center of gravity shifts eastward, the prospects for the U.S., Europe and Israel are anything but encouraging. Looking beyond the violent acts of a handful, the American administration would be well advised to examine why the Arab peoples reject it, and attempt to develop more coherent and better-balanced regional policies.

The danger is real: in the face of competition China, India, Russia or other emerging powers, America may be unable to halt its downward spiral. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s incoherent rhetoric and murky political program promise to accelerate the decline. Nor has President Obama, with his verbal eloquence and failure to act, been unable to stop the slide. The Arab world is seething; a new era has begun. This is the backdrop against which the U.S. administration must assess its certainties, its choices, its priorities, and—most urgently—its friends.