The past month has presented the world with what Israeli analyst Orit Perlov described as the two dominant Arab governing models: ISIS and Sisi.

ISIS, of course, is the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the bloodthirsty Sunni militia that has gouged out a new state from Sunni areas in Syria and Iraq. Sisi refers to Mr Abdel Fattah Sisi, the new President of Egypt, whose regime debuted this week by shamefully sentencing three Al Jazeera journalists to prison on patently trumped-up charges — a great nation acting so small.

ISIS and Sisi, argued Ms Perlov, a researcher on Middle East social networks at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies, are only flip sides of the same coin: One elevates God as the arbiter of all political life, while the other “the national state”.

Both have failed and will continue to fail — and require coercion to stay in power — because they cannot deliver to young Arabs and Muslims what they need most: The education, freedom and jobs to realise their full potential and the ability to participate as equal citizens in political life.

We are going to have to wait for a new generation that “puts society in the centre”, argued Ms Perlov — a new Arab/Muslim generation that asks not “how can we serve God or how can we serve the state, but how can they serve us”.

Ms Perlov argued that these governing models — hyper-Islamism (ISIS) driven by a war against takfiris, or apostates, which is how Sunni Muslim extremists refer to Shia Muslims; and hyper-nationalism (Sisi) driven by a war against Islamist “terrorists”, which is what the Egyptian state calls the Muslim Brotherhood — need to be exhausted to make room for a third option built on pluralism in society, religion and thought.

The Arab world needs to finally puncture the twin myths of the military state (Sisi) or the Islamic state (ISIS) that will bring prosperity, stability and dignity. Only when the general populations “finally admit that they are both failed and unworkable models”, argued Ms Perlov, might there be “a chance to see this region move to the 21st century”.

PROTECTING PLURALISM

The situation is not totally bleak. There have been two emergent models, both frail and imperfect, where Muslim Middle East nations have built decent, democratising governance based on society and with some political, cultural and religious pluralism: Tunisia and Kurdistan. Again, both are works in progress, but what is important is that they had emerged from the societies themselves.

There have also been the relatively soft monarchies — such as Jordan and Morocco — which are at least experimenting at the margins with more participatory governance, allowing for some opposition and which do not rule with the brutality of the secular autocrats.

“Both the secular authoritarian model — most recently represented by Sisi — and the radical religious model — represented now by ISIS — have failed,” said Mr Marwan Muasher, former Foreign Minister of Jordan and author of The Second Arab Awakening And The Battle For Pluralism.

“They did because they have not addressed people’s real needs: Improving the quality of their life, both in economic and development terms, and also in feeling they are part of the decision-making process. Both models have been exclusionist, presenting themselves as holders of absolute truth and of the solution to all of society’s problems.”

But the Arab public is not stupid, Mr Muasher said. “While we will continue to see exclusionist discourses in much of the Arab world for the foreseeable future, results will end up trumping ideology. And results can come only from policies of inclusion, which would give all forces a stake in the system, thereby producing stability, checks and balances and, ultimately, prosperity. ISIS and Sisi cannot win. Unfortunately, it might take exhausting all other options before a critical mass is developed that internalises this basic fact. This is the challenge of the new generation in the Arab world, where 70 per cent of the population is under 30 years of age. The old generation, secular or religious, seems to have learned nothing from the failure of the post-independence era to achieve sustainable development.”

Indeed, the Iraq founded in 1921 is gone with the wind. The new Egypt imagined in Tahrir Square is stillborn. Too many leaders and followers in both societies seem intent on giving their failed ideas of the past another spin around the block before, hopefully, they opt for the only idea that works: Pluralism in politics, education and religion. This could take a while, or not. I do not know.

We tend to make every story about us. But this is not all about us. To be sure, we have done plenty of ignorant things in Iraq and Egypt. But we have also helped open their doors to a different future, which their leaders have slammed shut for now. Going forward, where we see people truly committed to pluralism, we should support them. And where we see islands of decency threatened, we should help protect them. But this is primarily about them, about their need to learn to live together without an iron fist from the top, and it will happen only when and if they want it to happen. THE NEW YORK TIMES

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Thomas Friedman is a New York Times columnist and three-time Pulitzer Prize winner.