The Arab World’s Search for a Third Way

Guo Xiangang

The Arab World’s Search for a Third Way

Guo Xiangang

Since the end of 2010, the Arab world has been caught in a dramatic time of protest, bloodshed and regime change. Tunisia and Egypt experienced regime change; Libya, Yemen, and Syria are facing a political situation of incessant crises; and the royal family of Bahrain had to resort to external forces to quell its domestic opposition parties demanding political, economic and social reforms, in order to maintain its rule. The turbulence sweeping across the Middle East reflects a trend that the militarystrongmen regimes of the Arab world are about to exit the stage of history, the monarchies remain in a crisis, while the secular forces’ ideas of national revival and their practices of social transformation that emerged after World War I have suffered a major setback and failure. Meanwhile, Islamic fundamentalist organizations, another branch of the major forces in the Middle East, either charged forward at the forefront, or added fuel to the fire behind the scenes, or simply patiently boded their time in this turmoil. However, their ideology is not in line with the trend of the times and some of them even engage in terrorist activities and have a poor image, thus rendering them difficult to obtain power over the current power structures. Being at a historic crossroads, the Arab world is encountering a grave historical choice of what course to follow. They are deciding whether to transplant the Western-style democracy or blaze a trail.

I. The Secular Forces’ Explorations and Setbacks on Their Road to National Revival

In the national independence movements against Western colonial rule after World War I, there emerged two influential strands of thought on national revival in the Arab world: one was secular, mainly referring to pan-Arabism, while the other was religious, mainly defined by Islamic fundamentalism.

Pan-Arabism — which maintained that Arab countries with a common language, religion, history, and geographical ties unite to overthrow the feudal dynasty, expel foreign invaders, and establish a unified, prosperous and strong Arab state —first appeared at a conference of all-Arab representatives held in 1931. The most well-known practitioner of Pan-Arabism was Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser. In July 1952, the Association of Free Officers (Free Officers) headed by Nasser overthrew the corrupt Farouk dynasty, abolished the monarchy, and declared the establishment of the Republic of Egypt. In 1956, Nasser announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal, which was under Western powers’ control, and proceeded to defeat British and French forces’ joint intervention. In February 1958, Egypt and Syria were merged into the United Arab Republic (UAR). The UAR collapsed in September 1961 due to a series of disputes between Egypt and Syria. Although the UAR lasted only a little more than three years, it was an important attempt at unification by Arab peoples in modern history.

Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi also believed in pan-Arabism and admired Nasser. In September 1969, he led the Free Officers to stage a military coup, overthrowing the Idris dynasty which was dependent upon Western countries, founded the Libyan Arab Republic, implemented a nationalization policy with regard to oil, and took back U.S. air bases in Libya. In the meantime, the Gaddafi government asked for a merger between Libya and Egypt. In 1973, however, Gaddafi criticized Nasser’s successor Muhammad Anwar Sadat, saying that his “support for the Palestinian cause was limited to lip service,” and complained that Sadat “took a road of diplomatic negotiations” with Israel. As a result, the two sides held deep grudges against one another and the idea of a merger never materialized. The Arab Ba’ath (Renaissance) Party of Iraq and Syria were also practitioners of pan-Arabism and their leaders such as Syria’s Hafez Assad adored Nasser, advocated reviving the Arab nation and establishing a unified socialist Arab state in order to realize the goal of fighting against imperialism, colonialism, and Israeli Zionism. In addition, under the secular forces’ leadership, Sudan, Tunisia, Algeria and other countries also scored victory in their struggle against imperialism and feudalism, and won national independence. As a result, Nasser and a number of other leaders in the Arab world who overthrew feudal dynasties and founded republics were at once very influential — like the sun in broad daylight — and enjoyed a high prestige among the people.

The secular forces’ thought and practice of national revival made some achievements, rinsed the disgrace brought about by the colonial rule, boosted the Arab nation’s sense of pride and self-esteem, carried out the nationalization policy and land reforms, popularized education, and laid a foundation for the evolution of the Arab world from a nomadic and agricultural society to a more industrial and modern society. But, as the Arab states had divergent interests, they failed to achieve the goal of Arab unity. More regrettably, the military-strongmen regimes established after the overthrow of the feudal dynasties degenerated into family rule, while most other Arab states were monarchies, with only a few being republics. The militarystrongmen regimes and the monarchies had failed to address in a proper manner the problems facing the Arab world. Internally, they did not meet the peoples’ needs for livelihood as well as their desire for social justice; externally, they were defeated by Israel and could not regain their lost land and the Holy City. During the Third Middle East War of 1967, in particular, the warplanes of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq’ air forces were destroyed by Israel within 24 hours, and the loss of air supremacy made the Arab armies suffer a crushing defeat. During the third Middle East War which lasted six days, Israel occupied a total of more than 65,000 square kilometers of land, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, and Syria’s Golan Heights. This was four times of the pre-war Israeli territory. Nasser was deeply shocked by this and announced his resignation the day after Egypt accepted a cease-fire. It was only under the people’s strong urge that he agreed to remain in office.

The Arab military strongmen regimes that dominated the Middle East for several decades began to reach a dead end.

Nasser died in 1970 as a figure who was a legendary and deeply loved by the Arab people. The Arab world thus not only lost a leader who enjoyed popular confidence. It also saw its solidarity weakened. Egypt and Israel signed the Camp David Accords in September 1978 and the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty in 1979, through which Egypt took back the Sinai Peninsula. Egypt’s unilateral reconciliation with Israel encountered fierce condemnations from many Arab countries. The Arab League decided to move its headquarters out of Cairo, abolished Egypt’s membership in the alliance, and required other member states to suspend their relations with Egypt. Most Arab countries worked in concert with the Arab League’s decision and cut off their diplomatic relations with Egypt. It was not until 10 years later that Egypt regained its membership in the Arab League in May 1989. The split in the Arab world had an extremely negative impact on the Arab people’s goal of taking back the occupied territory. Up to now, most of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights have not been retaken, while most of the Palestinian people continue to lead a wretched life as displaced refugees. Meanwhile, the issue of the people’s livelihood in the Arab world has become increasingly severe, the unemployment rate has remained high, and the people’s discontent has been growing with each passing day. Finally, all these sparks were ignited by a fire that began in Tunisia, which then spread into a raging blaze that shocked the entire world. Although the military strongmen regimes in the Arab region may vary in their ways of turning from strength to weakness and toward collapse, they have some commonalities as follows.

First, their institutions were rigid and corruption was grave. After their coming into power through military coups, most leaders took the military as the cornerstone of their rulerships, had power in their grips that was short of constraints, and elections existed in name only. Their family interests were above everything else, with the son inheriting from the father, and nepotism and “home world” being prevalent, thus gradually isolating themselves from the people. They embezzled money and engaged in corrupt practices and were indifferent to people’s interests and sufferings, which led their economic development to a standstill. There was extreme disparity between the rich and the poor, and social conflicts were increasingly intensified. The Arab monarchies also faced similar social, political and economic problems.

Second, they failed externally to recover the Holy City and the lost land. Egypt regained the Sinai Peninsula through negotiations, but East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and much of the West Bank (of the Jordan River) are still under occupation, and the Palestinian people are still homeless. Moreover, Israel has been continuing to build new settlements in an attempt to permanently occupy the Arab territories, thus leading to the breakdown of the Arab-Israeli peace talks. Therefore, the Arab people’s aspiration of wiping out their disgrace has been repeatedly delayed, and they have lost confidence in their rulers’abilities to defend their territory and sovereignty.

Third, some Arab states forged alliances with the United States. The United States is Israel’s biggest supporter and has repeatedly transfused blood to Israel during the Middle East wars, resulting in the defeat of the Arab countries. However, some Arab rulers not only failed to draw lines with the United States but took the side of it and accepted a huge amount of U.S. aid. The Arab people who are resentful of the United States are contemptuous of their ruler’s practice of acting in collusion with Israel’s supporter — the United States.

Fourth, the Arab states have been in a state of disunity. All of the twenty-odd Arab states had their own calculations, which made it difficult for them to act as a unified group. Except for the short-term unity between Egypt and Syria, most Arab countries have no intention of unifying, while the ideal of pan-Arabism has been shelved. In the war against Israel, the Arab states were also lacking in coordination and effective cooperation, thus enabling their defeat by Israel one by one.

On August 3, 2011, Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak was brought to a public trial in Egypt. On August 11, the Egyptian Cabinet announced its intention to start the procedures for lifting the emergency law that had been in practice for 30 years. Syria also abolished the emergency laws introduced 48 years ago, lifted the ban on political parties, and gave permit to the legitimate activities of other political parties. Along with the trial of Egypt’s former leader, the Arab military strongmen regimes that dominated the Middle East for several decades began to reach a dead end. They could either take the initiative to make way for the tide of history, or act recalcitrantly and eventually be abandoned by their people. Either way, it would be unlikely for them to rally and stage a comeback.

II. The Trend of Islamic Fundamentalism

The Islamic fundamentalism officially emerged in 1928, a symbol of which was the founding of the Society of the Muslim Brothers (“the Brotherhood” or “MB”) in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood advocated seeking spiritual nourishment from doctrine of Islam, returning to the traditions and reestablishing the authority of the Koran with a view to eradicating corruption in the secular world, achieving social justice, and expelling foreign invaders. During the wave in the 1930s when the Egyptian people opposed their feudal dynasty signing an Anglo-Egypt agreement which surrendered the country’s sovereign rights under humiliating terms, the Muslim Brotherhood put forward a more explicit proposal of jihad and sought to liberate Egypt from foreign enslavement and establish a theocratic Islamic government.

The first Middle East War broke out in May 1948, during which the Muslim Brotherhood called on the people to engage in jihad in order to recover the Holy City and the lost land, and its members fought side by side with the Egyptian army and demonstrated their bravery. Consequently, their influence expanded rapidly in the military. In July 1952, the Muslim Brotherhood collaborated with Nasser in staging a coup and overthrowing the Farouk dynasty. However, due to their divergent ideas on statecraft, the Muslim Brotherhood and Nasser split ways after Egypt founded a republic, with the former’s leaders being put into prison by Nasser’s secular regime. Thereafter, the Muslim Brotherhood had been under pressure for a long period of time and was unable to participate in the elections and was excluded from the country’s political life. As a result, it resorted to launching frequent attacks against the government. In 1981, the extremist elements from the Muslim Brotherhood mixed themselves inside the Egyptian army and assassinated President Sadat who was conducting a military parade. During the Mubarak era, the Egyptian government adopted a reconciliatory attitude towards the Muslim Brotherhood but did not grant them full legitimacy. The conflicts between Egypt’s military-strongmen regime and the Muslim Brotherhood forced the government to devote a large amount of human and material resources to guarding against the Islamic fundamentalist groups.

In addition to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, other Islamic fundamentalist organizations emerged one after another in this region, such as the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Palestine’s Hamas, the Somalia Youth Party, the Ennahda in Tunisia, Algeria’s Islamic Salvation Front, Kuwait’s Social Reform Society, Bahrain’s Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain, and Sudan’s National Islamic Front, as well as al-Qaeda, which was founded in 1988. Excepting Al Qaeda, most of these organizations had cooperated and fought side by side with the secular forces in the struggle against Western aggression and their respective feudal monarchies in their early years. However, in the later period, they suffered from the same fate as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, encountering varying degrees of repression. The struggle between the religious and secular forces had greatly weakened the power of the Arab world as a whole.

During the mid-20th century, the Islamic fundamentalist extremist groups began to use brutal means to engage in terrorist activities. In particular, Al Qaeda engineered the 9/11 terrorist attacks that shocked the world. Since the late 20th century, some Islamic fundamentalist groups have started to express their political aspirations through participating in elections, in some cases winning general elections, although in some instances, such as Algeria, they are subsequently denied authority by the secular regime and the military. In December 1991, Algeria held a national legislative election, during which the Islamic Salvation Front swept the board. However, Algeria’s military reacted strongly to this. It cancelled the election results, declared that the country enter into a “state of emergency,” banned the Islamic Salvation Front, and arrested its leaders and core members. The Islamic Salvation Front then went underground, carried out terrorist activities and dealt with the military. There were also some fundamentalist groups that won the general election, came to power in specific regions but did not gain international recognition, such as Hamas in Palestine. Hamas won the local parliamentary election in Gaza in January 2005, and a year later in the Palestinian parliamentary election. Up to now, Hamas still controls the Gaza region, but it is considered to be an illegal and terrorist organization by the West and Israel.

There are special reasons for this historical resurgence and the paradox that has emerged in the Arab world.

At present, the Islamic fundamentalist organizations have spread all over the Arab world and expanded to the non-Arab Muslim world, becoming a force that cannot be neglected in the Islamic world. Seen from the history of human society, theocracies appeared in both ancient and medieval Asia and the European Middle Ages. After entering the modern society, this outdated and backward form of government has largely been abandoned. The theocratic theories and practices now advocated by the religious forces in the Middle East thus do not conform to the laws of historical development. Obviously, there are special reasons for this historical resurgence and the paradox that has emerged in the Arab world.

First, Islam is deeply rooted in the Middle East. Throughout the region one can find Mosques that have money and even real estate and industries, and possess abundant economic strength. They can also help needy people at critical moments. Those who get financial assistance are very grateful to them and always vote for the Islamic organizations and political parties or join them.

Second, the Islamic fundamentalist forces are relatively incorruptible, have strong combat capacity, and enjoy a charismatic image among the people. The fundamentalist forces have not been in office for a long period of time and are basically not corrupted by power and money. In the struggle against Israel, the Islamic fundamentalist groups also demonstrated their bravery. For instance, Lebanon’s Hezbollah fought bravely and tenaciously with a tiny force against the invasion of their formidable enemy Israel and forced the Israeli army out of Lebanon. This posed a stark contrast to the corrupt and degenerate secular military-strongmen regimes and the inept monarchies.

Third, the United States takes with the side of Israel and lends its support to the moderate secular regimes of the Islamic world in the Middle East, which presents a perfect reason for Islamic fundamentalism to instigate the people. American Middle East policy is manipulated by its strong domestic Jewish lobbying groups. The Unites States supports Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict, vetoes UN resolutions condemning Israel, supplies arms and ammunition to Israel, and offers a large amount of aid to Israel each year. Up to now, the Arab countries have not taken back the territory occupied by Israel. The Arab people maintain that in addition to their rulers’ incompetence, the main reason for that lies in the United States’ support for Israel. Thus, the Islamic fundamentalist forces accuse the secular Arab regimes of acting in collusion with the United States which is the Arab world’s enemy, and call on the people to unite under the banner of Islam to liberate the Holy City and the lost land.

Even though Islamic fundamentalism is popular to some extent and could gain a victory in elections, it runs counter to contemporary international trends and its extremist groups resort to terrorist means and are indiscriminate in killing innocent people. In particular, the 9/11 attacks demonstrated the extreme cruelty and inhumane nature of Al-Qaeda, which was condemned by and has sparked opposition from people around the world, including the Arab people and the followers of Islam. In the global fight against terrorism, the extremist groups of Islamic fundamentalism began to go downhill. The Muslims distanced themselves from such extremism and the organizations, including the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, started thinking about new ways to struggle. In the current turmoil in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood did not take drastic means to express its political aspirations but kept a low profile and participated in negotiations with the military conducted by the opposition parties. As the oldest Islamic fundamentalist organization, the changes in the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt reveal that more and more Muslims realize that the refusal of extremist groups to give up terrorism would not have a political future. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has begun to shift from simply engaging in armed struggles to a way of combining both political and military goals. In Palestine, Hamas, who has controlled the Gaza Strip since 2007, also changed its hard-line attitude and reached reconciliation with Fatah, a secular resistance force. On May 4, 2011, Hamas and Fatah signed an internal deal of reconciliation, agreeing to hold the Palestinian National Authority presidential and parliamentary elections and to establish a “Supreme Security Council” to coordinate security affairs. In early August, the two sides signed an agreement on mutually releasing all political prisoners and would continue to hold consultations to promote social reconciliation. Hamas and Fatah thus buried the hatchet and united in order to strengthening themselves, a goal which is in line with the wishes of the Palestinian people and conducive to the Palestinian cause of liberation.

III. Choice of a Third Way

The secular forces of the Arab world suffered from serious setbacks on their road toward national revival, and the Islamic fundamentalism could do little. Therefore, the Arab world is facing two options for a third way: one is to transplant Westernstyle democracy, the other is to find a development road suited to the region and establish a political system that not only fits modern society and international trends, but also respects local history and tradition, and tolerates religion and secular democracy.

The first choice is to transplant Western-style democracy. From the Western perspective, the current turmoil in the Arab world marks an “Arab Spring” that will bring Western-style democracy to the region. In fact, as early as in 2004, the George W. Bush administration already put forward the “Greater Middle East Plan” attempting to export democracy to the Middle East with an aim of transforming the Arab and Muslim countries. This, however, did not succeed, because the Greater Middle East Plan went beyond the stage of social development in the Arab world. Democracy is a political system that mankind earnestly longs for. Modern Western European countries became politically modern through an ongoing process that included the development of a commodity economy, the expansion of the civil and middle class, the experiencing of the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment as well as a long and arduous struggle. The Arab world is in quite a different situation; the level of economic development there is lower, social and cultural development is backward, religion enjoys far-reaching influence, and internal and external conflicts often intertwine. It therefore does not have the basic conditions for conducting Western-style democratic reforms. Seven years since Bush’s proclamation, the situation in the Arab world has not witnessed fundamental changes and the regional specifics go as follows.

The Arab world currently does not fulfill the conditions for transplanting the Western-style democracy.

First, in terms of economic bases, both the oil-producing and non-oil-producing Arab countries have relatively weak market economies. The economic structure of the oil-producing countries is one-legged. The rich class is dependent upon oil revenues, lacks the sense of market competition, has a relatively weak awareness of political rights, and is distinct from the middle class in modern Europe. Therefore, it is hard for them to become the backbone of change. The non-oil-producing countries are even more backward in their economies and are short of market vitality. From the 1980s to the present, the total Arab population has doubled, but its share of investment in the world has dropped by a half, its trade volume has fallen by two thirds, and half of the Arab countries have not joined the World Trade Organization. Economic backwardness has caused the middle class to grow in a slow manner and political modernization to face serious difficulties.

Second, because the Arab-Israeli conflict has not been resolved, the Palestinian people have become destitute and homeless, the Arab world have for a long period of time been in a state of imminent war, and it is difficult for political modernization to be put on the agenda. The Islamic groups that advocate regaining their homes through armed struggle and engaging in jihad enjoy more appeal. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, sharply pointed out that “democracy can flourish only in an atmosphere of political dignity. As long as the Palestinians live under Israeli control and are humiliated daily, they will not be attracted by the virtues of democracy”.

Third, the United States exercises double standards in promoting democracy and Western-style democracy has a poor image in the Arab world. American Middle East policy takes its own interests as a benchmark; as long as a regime is pro-American, the United States will support it no matter whether it is democratic or not. Otherwise, the regime will be suppressed with a firm hand. For instance, during the 1990s, the United States supported Algeria’s military to crackdown on the Islamic Salvation Front which won out in the democratic election. Moreover, in accordance with the principles of democracy, the United States should have held direct elections in Iraq after overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime. But, out of fear that the Iraqi Shiites, who have a close relationship with Iran, would come to power through direct elections, the United States argued for holding a grassroots meeting instead, bringing together Iraqi provinces in order to elect a new transitional legislative body which would take over sovereignty as a transitional government. This aroused the outcry of the Shiites who occupy a majority of the Iraqi population. They opposed the American proposal on establishing a new Iraqi government through indirect elections and insisted on electing a legitimate government through direct elections.

Fourth, the chances that Islamic radical forces win out in elections are high. Islamic fundamentalism does not conform to the trend of the times, and people are averse to the terrorist acts of extremist groups; but the Islamic fundamentalist groups are relatively free from corruption and dare to resist the U.S. regional penetration and Israeli aggression. Therefore, they are deeply admired by the Muslim people. When elections are held in the context of the secular forces being corrupt, people tend to vote for the Islamic fundamentalist organizations or political parties. Thus, the scenario of Algerian general election in the early 1990s is likely to be repeated. Dr. Henry Kissinger, former U.S. Secretary of State, was quite visionary when he reminded people to pay attention to the risks of promoting democracy within the political vacuum of the Middle East, and maintained that doing so might well produce chaos. Caution is thus needed when navigating between the necessity of reform and the risks of producing more chaos.

The above analysis reveals that the Arab world currently does not fulfill the conditions for transplanting the Westernstyle democracy. Where then is the third way that suits the development of the region? Seen from the perspective of the history of the Arab world and the current situation, only a model that is able to solve major problems in the region presents a viable third way, which has to meet the following requirements.

First, the model could unite both the secular and religious forces of the region. After decades of struggle between the secular and religious forces, the overall strength of the Arab world has been undermined, which is not conducive to the cause of Arab unity and liberation. Israel knows this quite well and is very worried about the unity of the Arab world. It was no wonder that Israel could not wait to express its opposition when Hamas and Fatah reached reconciliation on May 4, 2011. Therefore, the primary task of the Arab countries is to stop the internal frictions among themselves, enhance the power of the Arab world, and unite unanimously to liberate their homeland occupied by Israel.

Second, the model must be a combination of rather than a confrontation between the modern and the traditional. In the context of globalization in which mutual influence and interdependence among various countries has deepened, it is impossible for the Arab countries to keep aloof from world trends. To conform to the trend of the contemporary international community, the Arab countries must advance with the times and adopt the system of separation of religion and politics that is practiced in most countries in the world. At the same time, religion has a far-reaching impact in the Arab world. Therefore, on the one hand, separation of the church from the state should be implemented; on the other hand, the Islamic traditions should also be respected. Religious groups or parties should be allowed to participate in elections on condition that separation of religion from politics is complied with. Secularism and religion should be tolerant of each other, so that a compromise between them can be reached, thus creating a harmonious social environment for the stable development of the Arab world.

The Turkish model,may well be an important reference of choice for the Arab countries.

Third, the model could institutionally prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a few people or families. The new political system should place most importance on the people’s interests, listening to their voices, eradicating corruption, developing the economy, solving the issues of livelihood, and achieving social justice.

Fourth, the model could eradicate terrorism. Terrorism cannot solve the conflicts between Palestine and Israel but instead damages the image of the Arab people and Islam, and presents an excuse for the external forces to interfere in the internal affairs of the region. To this end, the secular forces should distinguish between the ordinary Islamic fundamentalist groups and the extremist ones, unite moderate Islamic organizations and political parties, and isolate and fight against terrorist forces.

Fifth, the model could refer to the current system in Turkey. Although Turkey is not an Arab country, it is an Islamic state in the Middle East and has many similarities with the Arab countries. During the early 1920s, under the leadership of General Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Turkey defeated the Western invaders, established a republic, and implemented a constitution based on separation of religion from politics. Over the past decade, the pro-Islamic Justice and Development Party (JDP) has increased its strength, got the people’s support, and witnessed frequent victories in general elections. The Welfare Party (WP) was the predecessor of the Justice and Development Party. During its rein from 1996-1997, the Welfare Party promoted the country’s Islamization, which led to tensions with the military. In 1997, on the grounds that the WP administration threatened the principle of separation of religion from politics, the military intervened in the domestic affairs in a fierce manner and forced the WP government to step down. After losing power, the Welfare Party engaged in a period of reflection and restructuring, during which the moderates separated themselves from the radicals and carried out rational policies. In 2003, the reorganized Justice and Development Party came to power after winning the general election. It did not carry out the measures with strong Islamic orientations any longer but instead cooperated with the secular forces. At the same time, the JDP administration amended the constitution in line with the principle of separation of religion from politics and subtly limited the military’s interference in the domestic affairs. Since February 2010, the JDP administration has arrested and investigated several senior Turkey military officers out of suspicion of their plotting to overthrow the government, thus safeguarding with the law the power of the democratically elected government. On July 29, 2011, the Turkish Chief of General Staff and the commanders-in-chief of the Navy, the Army and the Air Forces resigned collectively to protest the government’s investigation into the senior generals. The Turkish Government immediately appointed a new Chief of General Staff. Compared with the past interference in the domestic affairs through coups and threats by the military, the Turkish civilian government gained an upper hand this time in its contest with the military, demonstrating that Turkey has made significant progress in its political modernization. It also demonstrates the emergence of a political structure that ensures national stability and development under the principle of separation of religion from politics. At the same time, the democratically elected government is respected, and the secular and religious forces are able to coexist with each other within the framework of a modern constitution. Externally, the Turkish government was freed from the shackles of the military and distanced itself from the West, increased support for the Palestinian people, and greatly improved its status and influence in the Middle East. The Turkish model, which benefits both the state and the people, may well be an important reference of choice for the Arab countries.

IV. Conclusion

At present, the Arab world is still undergoing drastic turmoil in which various forces are engaging in an intense struggle. The old order has been broken but the new order has not been established. Meanwhile, there is still a long way to go with regards to the development of the choice of a third way. At this critical juncture in history, the Arab people, who have experienced numerous sufferings and made important contributions to humankind, will find and continuously perfect a development path that suits its own culture, history and traditions.

Guo Xiangang is Senior Research Fellow and Vice President of China Institute of International Studies.