It is difficult to understand, rationally or emotionally, the full meaning of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s election victory for a fifth consecutive term Sunday, with 89.6 percent of the vote, after two decades in power. One wonders whether we should congratulate the president on his massive victory, or offer him expressions of sympathy because his share of the votes slipped below 90 percent for the first time since he took over power in 1987.In the world of the modern Arab security state that has prevailed in our region since around 1970, President Ben Ali typifies the new breed of leader who stays in power as long as biology allows him, and justifies his perpetual incumbency as the logical consequence of his people’s appreciation for his combination of stability, development and democracy. Very few people outside the Arab world take this sort of thing seriously; in fact, we Arabs are the laughing stock of the world in terms of domestic governance systems. Yet the destiny of most people in our region remains to live in countries that are ruled for life by ex-officers from the armed forces and internal security systems.Elections in Tunisia and other such Arab security states are clearly an otherworldly experience, not serious or normal contests where competing candidates offer voters a real choice. A lack of credible opposition candidates and a stifling control of the mass media were only two of the means used to guarantee the ‘re-election’ of the Tunisian president, reflecting the enduring problem of contemporary Arab political governance systems where police and military personnel control the executive branch of government and, consequently, all other sectors of life and society. Official results from Tunisia’s 26 constituencies released Monday showed that Ben Ali’s victory margin ranged from 84.1 to 93.8 percent of the vote. He did better than that among overseas voters who gave him a resounding 95 percent of their votes. Perhaps the expatriate experience makes Tunisians more fond of both their democratic system and their beloved leader? Most credible opposition candidates were either banned or are already in exile. Two ‘candidates’ who are close to the government, Mohammad Bouchiha and Ahmad Inoubli, obtained 5 and 3.8 percent of the votes, respectively. The only ‘real’ opposition candidate in the eyes of observers, Ahmad Brahim, secured less than 2 percent of votes. These sorts of results are now found almost exclusively in the Arab world. Nobody else in the world dares to manufacture such incredible ‘elections’ and expect to be taken seriously, yet Arab leaders persist in this charade. Why do Arabs persist in this humiliating silliness?The Tunisian election reminds us that the most pressing priorities in all Arab countries are squarely anchored in distorted domestic systems. More precisely, the single biggest constraint to the development of the Arab world is the non-stop exercise of power by relatively small groups of men whose unchecked control of the security, police and military services allows them to define how all other sectors of society function, including the economic, educational, and cultural dimensions of life, and the judicial and legislative branches of government. The entire governance system becomes a private domain of control and wealth whose sole function is to perpetuate itself and maintain calm.The people and citizens of the Arab world have not been able to change this pattern of rule, and — with the exception of the controversial American-led attack on Iraq in 2003 — nor has the rest of the world seen it fit to do anything about it, either. The conclusion must be that life-long, non-democratic, self-appointed Arab presidents are an acceptable phenomenon in today’s world, perhaps because the alternative is more frightening. The life-long presidents and rulers of our region claim that the stability they provide is the single most important requirement of their societies, and nobody seems able to challenge that claim or to change this pattern.It seems obvious to any rational, honest person who knows the Arab region and other parts of our world, that this is an unnatural way to govern entire countries, because it results in complacent citizens that have been coerced and intimidated into their docile state of being. However, hidden beneath the surface calm of the modern Arab security state are the immense indignities of not being allowed to exercise core elements of one’s fundamental human rights — to speak freely, to hear opposing views, to express cultural and other identities, to organise and mobilise peacefully for social and political change.Such indignities are suffered quietly, over many years and presidential terms, yet they accumulate over time in the hearts of men and women who appreciate stability, but who also yearn for the ability to exercise the total dimensions of their God-given faculties, to live as total, not partial, human beings. Rami G Khouri is editor-at-large of The Daily Star, and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon