Zaid Eyadat: The major motivation for Arab revolutions was about human dignity
Kristina Horňáčková, Jan Daniel - 18. Červenec 2011, rubrika Rozhovory
Témata: Blízký východ, islám, lidská práva, multikulturalismus
Dr. Zaid Eyadat is a professor of Political Science and International
Relations at the University of Jordan and the chairperson of the Human Rights
and Human Development department. He graduated from the University of Southern
California, where he continues to teach. He has also taught at various
universities in the USA and Jordan and has worked as a consultant for diverse
international organizations and NGOs. Recently he conducted a course called
Islam and Human Rights at Faculty of Social Studies at Masaryk University in
Brno. Editors of Global Politics and Bulletin of The Czech Centre for Human
Rights and Democratization spoke with Mr. Eyadat about issues ranging from
Arab revolutions to multiculturalism and liberal islam.
The interview was conducted in June 2011
The issue of Islam and human rights seems to be quite far from your
original training in methodology and comparative politics. How did you come to
this topic?
It is not far. Comparative politics encompasses all of that – political
theories, philosophies, different political systems and political cultures.
Together with the methodology, it is the heart of political science. So this
training enables you to specialize in some area and have more profound
theoretical and methodological grounding.
In 2007 I was involved in establishment of the Human Rights and Human
Development Department at the University of Jordan. The reason was that Jordan
wanted to improve its public policies on human rights and connected issues, so
we started a joint English master programme with Pavia, Padova and Lund
universities under the umbrella of HDCA (Human Development and
Capability Association) founded and led by the great economist Amartya Sen.
The challenge of our department is to bridge human rights and human development.
They may seem unbridgeable, but thinking of Amartya Sen and others paved the way
for us. I particulary wanted to research some topics about Islam and human
rights. So my main research interest is the connection between Islamic thought,
human rights and human development. These topics I see as foundational for
human behaviour.
During our course you spoke a lot about the current situation in the
Arab world and you explained it as a „revolution of dignity“. Could you
elaborate on this term?
I must say, I am surprised and happy about what is happening, because I am a
person who highly values freedom and justice. I was sad about the conditions in
which the Arab states were for so long. That is also why I developed my own
theory of democratization and wrote my thesis about the alternative path to Arab
democracy.
Regarding the concept „revolution of dignity“ – after I gathered
information from various sources I came to the conclusion that the major
motivation for revolution was all about dignity. People's dignity has been
challenged by authoritarian regimes that were humilitating and degrading them.
So I think, deep inside the motivations of people, there was cry for restoring
their dignity.
Recently, Global Politics held an online
symposium about the Arab Spring. One of the questions was about the most
overlooked factors in recent events which are of the utmost importance for
future development. We've got various answers ranging from activities on a
community level to the global context. What would be your answer to this
question?
I am personally focusing on contextualizing the revolutions and bridging the
gap between micro and macro explanations. My understanding of the way how to
explain these events is to combine the nature of existing regimes and their
impact on the individuals, their psychology, political orientations and rational
calculations. Precisely, we need to find the links between the outcomes of
regime policies, psychological developments of individuals and how they together
paved the way to overcome the politics of fear practised by Arab regimes.
The situation in Libya, or Syria, is still pretty serious. Do you think
the international community will also intervene also in other countries?
Assad's regime doesn't seem to be giving up its position that
easily…
I think the international community is mishandling the Syrian case. We, I mean
the international community, tend to exaggerate the complexity of the situation
in Syria. I think this is due to the lack of understanding of what is happening
in that country. I guess the international community is as puzzled as the Arab
regimes themselves, and it doesn't know what to do. But the people on the
streets know exactly what they want. They want to liberate themselves and they
know the only way to do it is by being together and collectively pushing the
regime out.
So you think the people in Syria will finally succeed?
I have no doubt, and it is not out of optimism, but out of political analysis.
As I mentioned, in different places the rational of the regime has collapsed,
so the change is a matter of time now. I am not saying it will happen tommorow,
nor I am saying it will be at a low cost. But the regime in Syria cannot
restore itself as it used to be. At the least, there has to be significant
reforms. I am not saying all the Arab countries will have to go the same path
as Egypt or Tunisia, but I am saying the regimes will be changed. This change
could be by overcoming the regime, ousting the regime, kicking out the regime or
reforming the regime. The specific form of change then depends on the
sociocultural foundation of each country.
In Libya, it was quite obvious that the regime is massively violating
human rights of its citizens, and the army largely switched to the rebels side.
But in Syria the army seems to be more or less supporting the regime so
far…
Libya has no army, the official army went against Gaddafi and now he is relying
on daily-paid mercenaries. In Syria it is the opposite, so far. The security
forces, army and other, and not the political regime are handling the situation.
What happened in Libya in terms of foreign involvment is another story.
Europeans wanted to do something about the events in Tunisia and Egypt, so they
placed their bets and picked Libya. Now they struggle with the situation and
don't know what to do. Libya could have been for Europe what Iraq is for
Americans, and in fact, it still could be.
So what would be your policy if you were in the position of European
leaders?
First, I have to say I don't want to be in their position. But I would try to
be consistent and combine realism with constructivism in order to conduct my
foreign policy. So realism tells me to protect my interests, and constructivism
tells me that I have to understand the diverse motivations of people and
different realities in various countries. We have to know what Arabs stand for.
European policy was, in my opinion, based so far on total ignorance. How could
the EU at the same time promote human rights and democratization and align
itself with Ben Ali or Mubarak?
Recent polls have shown that even the USA, despite its support for
revolutions, is still perceived by the Arab world in a negative way. Do you
think this image will change in the future?
Attitudes are not very solid ground for political analysis, because by majority
they are changing at very fast rates. If you ask Arabs what they think about the
USA after the killing of Osama bin Laden and after Obama's speech on the
Egyptian revolution, you'll get completly different answers. So attitudes could
only be indicative of politics, unless they are stable for a long time. Then
they become opinions instead of attitudes. I think the negative image of
America will stay unless two crucial problems are solved. First, the Arab –
Israeli conflict and second, the stereotyped image of Arabs and Muslims. If
these two things stay the same, this negative image will continue.
Speaking of stereotyping Arabs and Islam, there seems to be rising level
of islamophobia in Europe within last ten or fifteen years. How is this issue
viewed from the Muslim perspective?
In my opinion, the islamophobia is dead. Muslims and Europeans have recently
come very near to each other's positions, and the fault lines between
Huntington's civilisations are diminishing. So this islamophobia exists only
in the mindset of small conservative circles, while at mainstream level the
sense of commonality has risen. Europe doesn't fear Islam any more. It is a
media-made myth. While talking to people I see some problems, but I think they
could be overcome in a liberal and humanistic fashion. So we should focus more
on how we can reconcile the differences between our positions than on the
differences as such.
But this – as you say – myth has some serious implications.
Far-right political parties are gaining votes from their hard position on Islam
and immigration…
My point is that this is more just general xenophobia, than a specific fear of
Islam. Furthermore, their criticism of Islam is often based on pure ignorace of
facts and lack of understanding what Islam is really about. For example the
issue of honor killings, which are in fact violations of true Islamic
principles. This xenophobic view of Islam is more about politics than about
reality.
Recently some European politicians have said that multiculturalism is
dead, and we should find some new way to deal with immigration. Where do you
think we should go after multiculturalism?
Multiculturalism cannot be declared dead because of these statements. However,
it certainly has its own challenges. The old model of multiculturalism doesn't
work anymore, and it needs some innovations. But the basis provided by a
multiculturalist approach is still valid, and that is the ethics of recognition,
tolerance and respect. These are ethical principles that cannot be declared dead
just by saying so. But multiculturalism is also a theoretical model that must be
developed over a time and I think there is some very good work done in this
manner, mainly by Will Kymlicka and Charles Taylor.
But I am afraid the idea of multiculturalism has become quite hard to
sell to general public, and on the other hand, the rhetoric of identity and
otherness has became a vote-winner.
I am not sure this is a valid argument. Public opinion is shaped by
politicians, and they work heavily to exploit it for their own purposes. But
I think if we tackle the identity fear-mongering from the humanistic and open
point of view, the fear will go away. Hopefully.
You came to Brno to teach an interesting course about Islam and human
rights. How is it to teach about religion and human rights in one of the most
atheist European states? What do you think about Czech students?
It is a challenge in one way, but I am really impresed. First, by the number of
students who came to class, and then by the quality of them. I assumed the
students wouldn't know much about Islam, wouldn't be much interested in it and
maybe there would also be some language problems. What surprised and positively
impressed me is the awarness and mind-set of interest. The people in the class
actually want to learn something. I am also impressed by the discipline.
I work with American students, and we have to teach them how to behave to
professors from foreign cultures. In the USA, my students call me Zaid, but if
they did this to Jordanian professor, it would be regarded as a strong insult.
On the other hand, I think the class lacked the broader knowledge of political
theories and theories of human rights. You can't study international relations
and human rights without knowing the fundamental political theories, such as
works by Rawls, Habermas, etc.
How is it to teach human rights in Jordan? We still regard it as a sort
of authoritarian regime that surpresses some human rights. Could you compare it
to, for example, your teaching experience in USA?
I have to say that I consider myself lucky for being able to teach in various
countries and cultures. This experience confirmed one thing for me – the
common humanity. It will maybe surprise you, but I found the most enthusiastic
students of human rights in Jordan. Not only because they lacked them, they
don't in fact, but because they are aware of human rights and human rights
movements worldwide. Also, regardless of political freedoms, Jordan is,
according to international standards, scoring on one of the highest levels in
human rights, particulary in civil rights and human development. Among the Arab
states it is absolutely number one. However, there is lack of especially
political freedoms, but as I said, the human rights movement is on the rise and
making its demands. So teaching there is enjoyable and not risky at all.
Moreover our human rights programme has the support of the queen, so that tells
you that even the people in power try to push human rights agenda.
During the class you mentioned the project you are working on, which you
have called The Muslim Enlightement. Could you please say more about
it?
I am really glad you are asking me about this, because it is actually my
personal intellectual and scholarly project. Islam has been victimized for so
long due to the dominance of conservative and traditionalist understanding of
Islam and the lack of opportunities for liberal minded Muslims to promote their
ideas. To my mind, the recent philosophical and theoretical development related
to the concept of postsecularism is only a confirmation of Islamic enlightement
thought.
This intellectual movement could sound really new, but in fact, it goes back
to the early days of Islam and its rational aspect, that has been for long time
neglected and marginalised. So we are trying to restore Islamic tradition that
adhere to reason. Various scholars paved the way for us, such as earliest
Islamic modernism and liberalism in late 19th century, followed by Nasr Abu
Zayd, Mohammed Arkoun and others. Also, my course on Islam and human rights is
theoreticaly based in this approach.
You say „we“. So there is some kind of network?
Yes, it is a network, and I cooperate with some other scholars, some of them
are, for example, my teachers – but there are also others. Lots of them were
working individually on this topic, and my contribution to the project was
bringing them all together. The project should now lead to the series of books,
workshops, conferences, seminars and articles.
Our last question is going back to the topic of recent Arab revolutions.
How do you see future development? Do you think that we can still expect some
important moments during the next few months?
Well, all options are out there, and the outcome is not decided yet. I refer
you to the golden rule of politics, which is uncertainity. However, we see some
trends and patterns of democratization in both Egypt and Tunisia, and this is
very encouraging. We still feel people's sentiments about their strength and
power. They still believe they can change something. Unlike Fukuyama, I'm an
optimist about future development. I hope for a new Arab age, where liberal and
democratic thinking is in the heart of society and not limited to scholars and
intellectuals.
Thank you very much for your time and for your interesting
answers.
Časopis pro politiku a mezinárodní vztahy
S podporou International Institute of Political Science v Brně