During a recent visit to Dubai, I was once again struck by the city’s ongoing transformation into a centre of modernity and progress. Its remarkable development reflects a broader pattern seen across the Gulf – mirrored in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Oman.
This consistent advancement prompts a pressing question: Why have the Gulf states succeeded in achieving such sustained growth, while other Arab nations – governed for decades by leaders who claim to embody revolutionary ideals and democratic resistance to imperialism – remain mired in stagnation and decline?
A widely circulated video of Emirati businessman Mohammed Alabbar recently caught my attention. In it, he acknowledges the absence of democracy in the UAE, yet points to its world-leading airline, top-ranked healthcare and education, thriving tourism sector and a climate of security, peace and transparency.
His remarks underscore a critical political question: What value does democracy hold when it fails to deliver stability or improve lives? The UAE’s model challenges conventional assumptions, demonstrating that prosperity and effective governance are not exclusive to democratic systems.
The Gulf model – most notably the UAE – shows that the effectiveness of governance is better judged by outcomes than by democratic formalities. When electoral systems produce weak leadership, institutional paralysis and growing public discontent, one must ask: What is the value of elections under such conditions? What is the role of a parliament locked in internal disputes, unable to pass even the most essential legislation? In the end, the credibility of any political system depends on its ability to deliver public services, uphold justice, and provide citizens with a secure and dignified life.
Lebanon offers a stark example. Once hailed as a democratic beacon in the Arab world, it now exemplifies the dangers of an unchecked and fragmented political system. Instead of promoting unity and development, its democracy – built on sectarian power-sharing – has fuelled institutional gridlock and national decline. Successive elections have done little to reverse this trajectory, instead reinforcing divisions and further weakening the state’s cohesion.
In contrast, Syria presents a notable paradox. Despite lacking electoral democracy and parliamentary representation, it has managed to restore a degree of stability and initiate reconstruction. This comparison prompts a difficult but necessary question: Is political stability under authoritarian rule more effective than a democratic system plagued by dysfunction? While Syria, without the formal structures of Western-style democracy, has rebuilt key infrastructure, Lebanon – despite its democratic framework – continues to struggle with basic public services, unable even to ensure consistent electricity or maintain essential roads.
This is not a rejection of democracy, but a call to reassess its purpose and practical value. Democracy should not be regarded as an untouchable ideal, but as a system judged by its ability to advance the public good. In Lebanon’s case, the issue is not the presence of democracy, but the failure of its current form.
What is needed is not abandonment, but comprehensive reform – shifting from a structure that protects sectarian interests to one that fosters inclusive citizenship and serves the broader national interest.
Democracy is not defined solely by elections, but by a broader culture grounded in individual rights, institutional integrity and civic responsibility. Without these foundations, it risks becoming a superficial label – one that conceals dysfunction rather than prevents it. Lebanon must now reckon with the failures of its current system and undertake the difficult, but essential, task of rebuilding its democratic framework. This requires dismantling sectarian privileges, overhauling the electoral system and establishing institutions that are autonomous, competent and accountable.
There is little merit in invoking freedom while institutions collapse, the social fabric unravels and citizens endure deepening poverty and instability. What Lebanon – and other nations facing similar challenges – needs is not the performance of democracy, but its substance: a political order built on responsibility, effectiveness and a shared national vision. Without these elements, democracy risks becoming nothing more than a hollow construction, masking the slow disintegration of the state.
akram@fp7.com
&uuid=(email))