Global City, Tribal Citizenship: Dubai's Paradox
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Global City, tribal Citizenship: Dubai’s paradox Marc Lavergne To cite this version: Marc Lavergne. Global City, tribal Citizenship: Dubai’s paradox. Cities of the South. Citizenship and Exclusion in the 21st Century, Saqi Books, pp.261-292, 2007. halshs-00375153 HAL Id: halshs-00375153 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00375153 Submitted on 14 Apr 2009 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Cities of the South (Relié) de Barbara Drieskens (Sous la direction de), Franck Mermier (Sous la direction de), Heiko Wimmen (Sous la direction de) Colloquium: “Cities and Globalization: Challenges for Citizenship” IFPO/Heinrich Böll Foundation Beirut, 9-11 th December, 2005 Global City, tribal Citizenship: Dubai’s paradox Dubai tries, quite successfully, to promote itself as the archetypal “Global City”. This oil emirate on the south-eastern shore of the Gulf indeed attracts a continuous flow of visitors and customers from the whole world, while the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants are foreign residents. These range from the top executive of foreign companies and civil servants that make the City function under the control of the local Emir’s family and its close local and foreign associates to huge masses of cheap labour originating mainly from South and South-West Asia: altogether, the foreign inhabitants are estimated to represent over 95 % of the total population. So the local population, usually called in Arabic “watani”, meaning citizens, only represent a tiny minority. Obviously, it would seem that the clear demarcation between citizens and non-citizens should settle the question of who has a say in the city’s public affairs. But the situation is more complex, since neither the local population on one side, nor the aliens on the other, enjoy a similar and equal official or non-official status and share of wealth and power. And these discrepancies play an important role, as the notion of citizenship appears more multifaceted than it looks at first sight. The question raised by the extreme case of Dubai has to be looked into not only as a kaleidoscope or combination of immensely diverse social and juridical conditions, but in a more dynamic sense, as offering a good opportunity to clarify the question of the relationship between globalization and citizenship. It is widely considered that the process of globalization could lead to a weakening of the situation of the urban dwellers, which are in most cases, theoretically, enjoying a status of citizens: the functioning of large and increasingly heterogeneous urban fabrics might render the relationship between rulers and ruled more complex than the face to face of traditional government, and induce a widening variety of status and participation to the running of the city’s public affairs. In order to assess the real state of this notion in Dubai, one has to take into consideration its double meaning: 1) civil rights, that are universally admitted as fundamental human rights that are granted to anyone, and include the right to State protection, to participation in social life, to practice its religion and customs…and economic rights, that might be granted under specified conditions and restrictions, as the right to own real estate and property, to establish oneself on a more or less permanent and secure basis, to open, own and run a business… 2) Civic and political rights, which are only granted by citizenship stricto sensu : these might entitle to take part in the City public affairs, to vote and elect or be elected as representative to local or national consultative or deliberative Councils or Assemblies, or even to the executive bodies like the local 1 government, be it a Municipality or a State. It should be noted here that Dubai is not only a town, but it strenuously and to a large extent successfully attempts to assert itself as a quasi-State, maintaining a large degree of autonomy within the Federation of the United Arab Emirates, which it reluctantly joined at the eve of independence from the United Kingdom in 1971. So the question there is not only that of citizenship in the frame of a city, but within a larger body, which could include the question of a nation- building process, with its cultural and ethnic dimension. Globalization is advocated by its idealistic supporters as bound to lead to the vanishing of national identities: the diversity of statuses should eventually melt in a comprehensive “world citizenship” uniting all “colors” in a Global Village 1. But if the free trade is strongly enhanced by the rules of the WTO, that provide for a global market of goods and services, the mobility of human beings is strictly limited to the needs of manpower in industrialized countries and of tourism from those into specific spots in the poor countries. Be it in industrialized countries or in the oil states of the Gulf, the inflow and stay of manpower is severely controlled by state authorities, and their official status is kept as precarious and low as possible, so as to keep at their lowest the economic conditions of this foreign labour, in a context of fierce competition between wage levels from one country to another. In the case of Dubai, another factor that explains the denial of any form of citizenship to the huge majority of its dwellers is the demographic gap between the local population and the quantity of foreign labour needed to pursue the economic ambitions of the city’s ruling elite. So Dubai, far from being a “melting pot”, remains a patchwork of human groups ruled by a strict if non- official social and spatial segregation, where human beings interact solely in the prospect of creating and sharing profit and wealth, albeit on an extremely unbalanced footing. But citizenship may also entail another meaning, that of one’s feeling familiar to a place to the point of a sense of belonging to it, being part of its human spectrum, being part of what gives life to it, be it by one’s living, working or just enjoying it, walking in its streets, interacting with other people that share the same feeling : there is the root of citizenship, a feeling if concern about the City’s daily life and growth, of feeling concerned by the decisions taken to its future. This feeling is by no means linked with a juridical status, on the contrary, world metropolis had largely their destiny influenced by newcomers, devoid of any official say in the municipality’s decisions. But in most cases, contrary to Dubai, several layers of migrants have stratified during long periods of time, the first ones acquiring a legitimacy to play a political and civic role, and enlarging their circle over time to those who followed, as in the case of New York and other North American cities… I – What it needs to become a Global City Where usually the first question that comes to mind is: what does it mean to be Global? I would like to first tackle the question: what is it to be a City? The 1 MacLuhan 2 difference between a City and a town is well known to Geographers, the town being merely a human gathering that presents urban characters, while the City is a more political concept, as its own government is concerned, and also the dominant role it might play over the surrounding area or through its long range networks. The City has over time acquired another meaning, probably from the City of London, that is an economic and financial focal point. The question being then: is it possible to conceive globalization without democracy, or without any kind of participation of the workers to the shaping of their life’s environment? Or more specifically, is not globalization an obstacle to democracy, or vice-versa? That is, is Dubai’s thriving growth not due, at least for a part, to the absence of democracy? And in that case, is Dubai not showing the way for a successful globalization, which would imply the negation or suppression of civic and political rights in favour of economic competitiveness? The first element to consider is that Dubai has from its inception be considered by its rulers as an economic tool before anything : hence the term of “Dubai enterprise” attached to it from the time of late Shaykh Rasheed (reigned 1959-1990), one of the firsts of a long line of Amirs of Dubai, that made its ambition come true. Dubai has been seen as a profit making business, rather than as a cradle for a local or imported society, before to be considered a City. If most towns owe their existence to the fulfilling of economic needs, this is often the result of a spontaneous aggregation of individuals and groups. They develop the skills and interactions needed by the surrounding environment and increasingly, by the needs of the town’s life itself. In the case of Dubai, the beginning of the fortune came through free trade, imposed by colonial powers during the previous globalization phase. Far from the myth of “Merchant adventurers” that is promoted to invent an historical depth and an autonomous leadership comparable to that of Oman or Kuwait, the City is “born” at the eve of the XXth century, as a support to British imperial projects (when the merchants of Lingeh, on the Persian shore of the Gulf were attracted by the opportunity to escape the taxes that were about to be imposed on them) ; so this first success was at the expense of the attempt by a still independent State, Persia, to escape being subjugated by a World Colonial power 2.