Anxieties of Change: Why Do Arab Elites Fear the Demands of Freedom?

The Arab political scene in general, and the Tunisian one in particular, is dominated by political and social groups that feel a real terror of the possibilities of change inherent in the popular consciousness. These elites have, over time, transformed into conservative forces desperately defending the prevailing conditions, in anticipation of the consequences that might result from the liberation of peoples and their breaking free from the shackles of dependency.

The concept of freedom, at its core, represents a critical transition from a state of stagnation and false stability to a state of movement and uncertainty, a stage that requires a long time to rebuild stability on sound foundations. This transitional path seems frightening and costly for forces unwilling to pay the price of change, which drives them to regress towards preserving the status quo as the least harmful option.

The capitalist class in the Arab region is one of the most prominent conservative forces, as it cannot be compared to the historical Western bourgeoisie that led democratic transformations. This class in our Arab context is a direct product of political regimes that created it to be an economic belt ensuring the survival of power in exchange for financial privileges.

Although global transformations offer enormous economic opportunities in an atmosphere of freedom, capital owners have chosen to defend their narrow matrix of interests by rejecting all radical change. This was clearly evident during the Arab Spring tests, where this class sided with everything that represented the spirit of the old regimes and pumped huge sums of money to stifle any peaceful movement.

These economic elites lack the necessary qualifications to lead social or intellectual change; they are a class experiencing a state of intellectual clinical death, and do not produce real developmental programs. Their ultimate ambition is to perpetuate the status quo, which explains their lack of support for culture or education, preferring to live under systems that reject openness.

On the other hand, modernizing elites emerge, raising slogans of liberalism, leftism, and nationalism in their theoretical literature, while in reality practicing behavior hostile to the liberation of peoples. Major political junctures have revealed a huge gap between the theoretical pamphlets of these elites and their practices, which often blessed the destruction of ballot boxes.

Political sources have observed a clear bias of modernizing forces in favor of military forces in several Arab countries, where popular movements were labeled as conspiracies to justify coups. This behavior stems from an established idea that any freedom that might enable a political opponent, specifically the Islamist current, to participate is a freedom that must be blocked.

These conservative modernists prefer the survival of bloody and totalitarian regimes over the people being liberated and choosing their representatives with free will, which is a stark contradiction to the principles of modernity. Some of them even went so far as to yearn for previous authoritarian rule models, forgetting decades of bitter criticism they directed at those regimes before the test of freedom confronted them with the truth.

This fear of freedom among these elites is partly due to their realization that the street's balance does not favor them, and that the modernization projects they adopted did not meet people's aspirations. In contrast, the masses, described as simple, have shown a greater ability to accept change and endure the hardships of the path separating tyranny and freedom.

Looking at the experience of Islamist currents, we find that they were the party that tried to protect freedoms in the initial founding period after the Arab revolutions, despite all attempts to discredit their experience. They actively contributed to establishing the foundations of democratic work in Tunisia and Egypt, and paid a heavy political and human cost as a result of their adherence to this path.

It is impossible to build a free and stable system if one team alone defends freedoms while the rest of the elites entrench themselves in the camp of counter-revolutions or suspicious silence. The path to freedom necessarily requires a transformation in the mindset of the economic and modernizing elite, a path that still seems long and arduous given the current circumstances.

The current Arab political scene is still governed by the mentality of enemies of freedom, at a time when supporters of real change are behind bars or in exile. Although the spirit of freedom still ferments in the hearts of peoples, talking about an imminent breakthrough requires caution and a precise reading of the balance of power on the ground.

The attempts of coup regimes to change their military or political facades are merely cosmetic operations aimed at preserving the essence of the existing tyranny. This conservative policy seeks to prolong the stagnant situation, but it always clashes with the existential question that threatens the worn-out pamphlets from which the enemies of change read.

Ultimately, the conflict in the Arab region remains a struggle between the will for liberation and forces that fear losing their privileges under the rule of law and citizenship. And even if the road is long, awareness of the contradictions of the conservative elites represents the first step towards regaining popular initiative and building a future where the ruler does not fear the freedom of the ruled.

Freedom means moving from a stagnant state to a dynamic and uncertain one, and this transition is frightening and costly for those afraid to pay the price.