Ribal Al-Assad calls for Human Development and Democracy in Syria in speech to the Oxford International Relations Society

Ribal Al-Assad, the Director of the ODFS, today addressed the Oxford International Relations Society, which is one of the most active and dynamic societies at Oxford University. Its remit is to educate the students of Oxford about the opportunities and challenges in global affairs.

Recent previous speakers at the Society include:

Marc Dubois, Executive-Director of Medecins Sans Frontieres (UK), Thomas Mirow, President of Euro Bank of Reconstruction and Development, Dominic Martin, Britain's Permanent Representative to the OECD, Lord Paddy Ashdown, the Former leader of the Liberal Democrats and prominent diplomat, and General (retired) Pervez Musharraf, Former President of Pakistan.

In a well received speech, Mr Assad called for human development and peaceful transitional democratic reform in Syria. The lecture was followed by a comprehensive question and answer session.

In his speech, 'Human Development and the Path to Democracy: a Syrian scenario' Ribal Al-Assad, said:

Ladies and gentlemen, it is a great pleasure for me to be here this evening among such bright minds. I would like to thank you and your President, Jan Indracek, for inviting me.

I hope that we will enjoy a lively debate and that our discussions will do justice to the great issues facing us; what shape will the Middle East take over the coming months and years? What role can state and non-state actors play in promoting democracy? What triggers and tools can we identify from the dramatic unrest in North Africa and the Middle East? What dangers lurk amidst the opportunities facing the region, and indeed the world?

The events of recent months have been momentous, and we will examine them in detail this evening. However, so huge have these events been that there is a risk of their scale and speed obscuring the very human stories that are at the heart of one of the most significant political realignments since the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

As 2010 was coming to an end, few people were aware of the great tensions and difficulties that bubbled beneath the surface in Tunisia. One man, 26 year old Mohammed Bouazizi, faced the same hardships as many others of his generation. He had a university degree, but no job. To make ends meet he began to sell fruit and vegetables. He had no licence, and when the authorities confiscated his livelihood he felt so desperate, and so deeply let down by his government, that he set himself on fire. Sparks from those tragic flames were carried by the wind across Tunisia in a matter of hours.

What began as a protest over specific social and economic conditions morphed, organically, into extraordinary popular calls for democracy and reform.

Amidst the uncertainty of what may follow, complex questions raise their heads; questions over security, extremism, democratic development and political realignment.

This genie cannot be put back in its bottle. The ideas have taken hold, and a powerful idea can spread fast and lodge itself in the collective mindset of an entire people. How countries in the West respond to this phenomenon is just as important as how Arab states respond themselves. Nowhere is this more relevant than with regards to Libya, where the relatively peaceful Egyptian model was never going to be replicated.

There are many considerations that we must take into account when trying to assess the current state of play, and this involves looking beyond the countries that have seen unrest. Iran and Syria are two such countries, and we will turn our attention to them shortly.

I want to turn to the main theme of this evening; human development and its relationship with democratisation.

Since I’m addressing an academic audience, I thought I’d scratch the surface of democratisation theory. As I’m sure you know, the political scientist Samuel Huntington identifies three ‘pathways’ that can begin the process of democratisation; single cause, parallel development, or snowballing.

He identifies ‘single cause’ as a defining moment which can begin a ‘new movement’ for example, the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, or a shift in the international distribution of power. Or, perhaps, the self immolation of a student in Tunisia.

‘Parallel development’ refers to a process whereby democratisation within a particular country is caused by something within and particular to that country. The process of democratisation may be at work in a geographical region, but each country is responding to events within its own boarders.

Finally, ‘snowballing’ (evident in Eastern Europe in the 90s and also referred to as ‘democratisation by intimidation’) comes about as the result of travel of knowledge and popularisation of ideas, which can spread throughout a region – especially now, where information is shared almost instantaneously around the world.

Whilst Huntington identifies these three potential ‘causes’ of democratisation he is wary that they are neither exhaustive, nor are they mutually exclusive, nor are they necessarily contradictory - indeed, all may be at work in any one situation.

The United Nations Arab Human Development Report (UNAHDR) (2005) is one of the most comprehensive assessments of Arabic social and economic development. Abdul Hamid Brahimi concludes the chapter on reducing poverty and tackling economic and social issues such as employment, training and economic policy. He notes that Arab nations suffer from deep rooted relative poverty and dysfunctional economies – which have caused, and now sustain, underdevelopment.

Brahimi points to Islam as a source for tackling these social conditions (which reminds us again of the importance of context) but furthermore, Brahimi details specific areas which must be addressed if Arab society is to develop.

Firstly, the voluntary sector should be encouraged to engage with under developed communities and to assist the vulnerable – thus creating a degree of pluralism in society. Human capabilities must also be developed; the so called ‘knowledge deficit’ must be corrected. This includes measures from increasing school attendance to promoting internet connectivity. In doing so, one could argue that a society becomes more receptive to conditions favourable to democratic transition.

However, these academic theories presuppose a political will to move towards democracy. What we have seen in North Africa and the Middle East is that in the absence of such freedoms and developments, people resort to taking to the streets. And, in many cases, this has brought about profound change.

“No bourgeoisie, no democracy” – this is the famous assertion of the political sociologist Barrington Moore, and it is upheld by some democratization scholars today. But is it too simplistic? Is it even relevant to the Middle East? Some may argue that the middle class can be a powerful independent force which extracts power from the state and creates the conditions necessary for civil society to grow. Civil society, so the argument goes, creates a pluralist network of actors and interests that encourage democratic principles.

However, according to some, the Middle East lacks a ‘functioning’ middle class because of the pre-modern state’s hostility to private property ownership and the accumulation of wealth. Furthermore, Imperialism’s running of local industries reduced the Middle East to a mere bit player in the global economy – relying heavily on raw material exports.

To compound these conditions, revolutionaries often swept away any sign of industrial bourgeoisie in a wave of nationalism. The consequences of this are that the state became the main entrepreneur and investor, therefore people became dependent on the state for their livelihoods rather than the state being dependent on the people for its legitimacy.

Again, in the absence of any political will from the top, the changes we have seen have been brought about through direct action as opposed to any gradual or “conventional” development. The question is, what can other States do to avoid the same fate of the leaders who have already fallen? The answers lie in the necessity of human development.

Let me make my position perfectly clear; if we are for democracy, we are for democracy everywhere. If we are for freedom and liberty, we must support these ideas everywhere. And if we believe in security, markets and development then we must never make the mistake of thinking that some nations, or some people, are not “ready” for or suited to these concepts. A country should not have to be deemed fit for democracy, a country becomes fit through democracy.

In recent months I have addressed various conferences, including just a few weeks ago the European Police Congress in Berlin, where I spoke about radicalisation in the Middle East.

I asked the audience to consider the following; a young man, with an education, finds that he cannot find work. He cannot afford the necessary bribe for the licence to start a business. His quality of life falls dramatically. He begins to grow distant from society and the institutions he used to know. He comes to resent the life he leads and the world that has fostered it upon him.

Who will offer him support? The welfare state? Or the political extremities of violent Islam? In far too many Arab countries, the answer is all too often the latter.

Of course, not every disaffected youth turns to extremism. But the conditions created by oppressive regimes and dictatorships make life easier for those who would exploit hardship for their own ends.

We must embrace the idea that a free, educated and prosperous society will be far more likely to shut its ears to the extremist voices within. Furthermore, transparent, respected and functional state institutions will be better positioned to deal with the threat of extremism if they operate within a democratic, plural and stable society.

In Syria, as in so many un-free countries, the state infrastructure is geared towards the preservation of the regime and not towards the benefits of the people. This lack of transparent and accountable institutions is a major contributory factor to the discontent of the people, and urgent reforms are needed now if Syria is to progress as a society and as a nation.

Despite the uncertainty of what the political map of the Middle East could look like in the months to come, there are already voices questioning whether democracy would “suit” a country like Egypt.

I do not believe that democratic elections will inevitably lead to an Islamist government, or even a government with Islamist sympathies. Most people in the Arab world do not want a theocracy.

The voices of those on the streets in North Africa are calling for freedom.

Freedom to choose their government, and freedoms under that government.

If the will of the people is listened to, it cannot be so easily manipulated by extremist groups. As the grievances of the people are addressed, the populist rhetoric of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda will find it harder to reach sympathetic ears.

Employment. Development. The freedom to engage with the world online.

These are what people are crying out for in Arab states.

Western governments have been extolling the virtues of democracy, as a cornerstone of their foreign policies, for decades. And so it is perhaps surprising that many in the West, faced as they are with Arab civilians who now share this aspiration, are nervous of the consequences.

During his trip to the Middle East, David Cameron said recently that "For decades, some have argued that stability required controlling regimes and that reform and openness would put that stability at risk.”

He said that the UK, and others in the West, had been guilty of a prejudice that bordered on racism for believing that the Arab world could not handle democracy. Whilst he stressed that the West cannot impose its own form of democracy on Muslim countries, we can no longer adhere to the old fashioned view that the Arab world is an exception in the West’s belief in (and promotion of) democracy.

The Prime Minister also said that "Democracy is the work of patient craftmanship – it has to be built from the grassroots up.” Whilst it is clear that there is increasing popular demand from the grassroots, it is also the role of Arab leaders to create the political, economic and social conditions necessary to generate, promote and sustain democratic reform.

I was asked recently in a television interview what advice I would give to the leader of the Syrian regime. My reply was simple: “Change or be changed.”

Syria offers us a perfect example of a regime that could change, but won’t. The overtures from the West have increased in recent years as diplomats try to tempt Syria away from its strategic relationship with Iran. At the same time, the regime has been trying to promote itself as a liberalising and developing nation. The sad truth is that if the regime put half as much effort into reforming as it does into talking about reforming, then the lives of millions of Syrians would be improved.

Let me offer you a stark example of the “spin operation” embarked upon by members of the Syrian regime.

The World Finance Magazine’s Top 100 list of those who have made the most significant contribution to “fiscal and economic progress across the globe" described one particular Syrian businessman and senior regime insider as:

“A genuine leader, well known for his strong will and for his high personal and professional ethics... He plays a role in Syria’s vibrant economic development, investing his enthusiasm and energy to set a wind of change in the business environment. He has a rock-solid reputation as a visionary that realises his vision. Philanthropic, a family man and sport passionate, he masters the art of work – life balance”

This isn’t quite how he is viewed by Syrians themselves, or indeed by Western governments. In various official documents, the man in question has been described as

“A powerful Syrian businessman who amassed his commercial empire by exploiting his relationships with Syrian regime members. He has manipulated the Syrian judicial system and used Syrian intelligence officials to intimidate his business rivals. He employed these techniques when trying to acquire exclusive licenses to represent foreign companies in Syria and to obtain contract awards.”

This is one example of many that come to mind when one considers the lengths that the regime will go to promote itself as a reformer. In the aftermath of the Tunisia revolution, the leader of the Syrian regime, gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal, in which he claimed to welcome the wave of reform spreading across the region, and suggested that Arab leaders should meet the challenge and embark on reforms.

I would argue that ending the ruinous 50 year old State of Emergency would have been a more effective demonstration of reform. Certainly more effective than a press release.

The challenges facing Syria are immense. If we consider them for a moment, I’m afraid it is not a pleasant picture. Indeed, I could be describing the pre-revolution state of Tunisia or Egypt.

High food prices, corruption, a lack of personal freedom and a troubled economy all combine to make life for ordinary people a daily struggle. A rising budget deficit, water shortages, declining oil production and rising unemployment all conspire to create a society that is held back by both a lack of social development at the bottom and a concerted effort from the top to reduce political and economic freedoms.

The Legatum Institute, a London-based think-tank that looks at global prosperity and development, ranks Syria as 83rd in the world for quality of life in its highly regarded Global Prosperity Index. The Institute ranks Syria as:

- 71st in the world for economic freedoms

- 79th for good governance

- 92nd for entrepreneurship and opportunity, and

- 99th for personal freedoms

Regionally, Syria ranks behind many other Arab countries.

The Institute concludes that:

“Syria’s economy displays weak foundations for growth....A poor ICT infrastructure and high start-up costs hinder entrepreneurship and innovation….Syria’s government is autocratic, placing heavy restrictions on citizens’ political rights….Syria does not allow its citizens to exercise the freedom of expression, belief, association, and personal autonomy.”

Transparency International rank Syria as 125th in the world in its respected Corruptions Perception Index 2010, which measures perceptions of corruption in public life. It gives my home country a score of 2.5 out of 10 and placing it behind countries such as Mongolia, Kosovo, and Bolivia.

I recently listened to a speech by Foreign Office Minister, Jeremy Browne, where he articulated the underlying commitment of the UK government to supporting democratic transitions around the world. In his speech, he said:

“While we understand that democracy develops over time, this is not an excuse for those societies without democracy not to change.”

Frankly, many countries in the Middle East, including Syria, were caught totally off guard by the rapid and powerful uprisings that have occurred in the region. It is a fact in politics that you are either ahead of events or behind them. If caught unaware, one must move quickly to get ahead of - or at least in sync with - popular opinion. In the case of Syria, this will involve a genuine commitment to reform and the formation of a national unity government.

Let me be clear, I do not want to see an uprising in Syria. What I want to see, and what I am currently promoting to journalists, MPs and opinion formers here in the UK is a real commitment from the Syrian regime to a genuine reform agenda: an agenda based not on the weaknesses of the regime but on the strength of the people.

My friends, nobody knows with any certainty what the future holds for North Africa and the Middle East. The only thing we know for sure is that all over the region people are standing up, risking their lives, and demanding their rights. If these voices are not listened to then the patience of the people will be tested to destruction.

In refusing to offer genuine social, political and economic reforms, the Syrian regime is finding itself on the wrong the side of an argument that isn’t going to go away. The time for platitudes is over. The era of political change is only just beginning.

Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.