In our own time, at our own pace, if at all: the seventh forum on democracy, development and free trade was held in Doha at the end of April, when Adel Darwish and Pat Lancaster joined around 500 other participants in the Qatari capital to debate the progress, or otherwise, of reforms in the region.

THERE WAS SOMETHING unique and yet expectedly familiar about the 2007 Doha Conference on Democracy and Free Trade, held at the end of April in the Qatari capital. This annual event has established itself as an exceptional global forum where world leaders past and present rub shoulders with business analysts, journalists, economists and academics, and where potent royals share tables with aspiring young graduates, all in the name of furthering democracy, reform and the liberalisation of Arab nations.

The Qataris currently top the world table of per-capita income earners. The indigenous population stands at about 200,000 with more than three times that number of foreigners employed to fuel the country's fast growing economy. National income is expected to reach $46bn-$50bn this year and that amount should double by 2015. With the population, including foreigners, hovering around the one million mark, few are likely to be grumbling about standards of living, services or lack of political representation. Nevertheless, the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, held local elections earlier this year to appoint Central Municipality Council members, where a woman collected the largest number of votes; more elections are planned to select two thirds of the 45-member Shura (consultative) Council, with the other 15 members to be appointed by the Emir.

Sheikh Hamad is deeply committed to the idea of democracy for his people and while conceding there is still a long way to go, at the opening session of the seventh forum, the Emir warned that even though the situation in the Middle East is currently sensitive, political reforms should not be relegated to the back-burner.

In a total of 12 sessions over three days, guests of honour, including the president of Finland, Mrs Tarja Halonen and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, as well as eminent speakers and eager participants from around the globe, worked to ensure that far from being pushed onto the back-burner, democracy and reform held centre stage.

"The main reason for the democratic incapacity, in my view, is due to the lack of correct understanding of reform, which must be comprehensive and deep and not partial or intermittent," the Emir observed, adding: "There can be no economic reform without political reform, which must be supported and guided by social reform."

While the overall desire for reform is beyond doubt it is clear Arab states are determined the emergence of a more democratic society should not follow any western blueprint. "We want to become more democratic but we do not want to become like you," as one Gulf participant told The Middle East candidly.

There is much in Arab society they may be at pains to hold on to. Take the opening dinner as a case in point--here was the tribal form of open governance by consent in action; the Emir, Sheikh Hamad and First Lady, Sheikha Mouza, mingled informally with guests at the opening dinner--shaking hands randomly with their guests and engaging in polite conversation over the nature of democracy and what form it might take in the conservative Gulf region.

Given the country's economic prosperity and its small population, this relaxed rule works well. At heart, Qatar remains a traditional society that does not believe in change for the sake of change. Although it does not enjoy the massive oil wealth of some of its neighbours, it was gas, discovered in mega-massive amounts in the North Field that acted as the catalyst for economic and political change.

The Emir and his government know that how the wealth earned from gas is spent will impact on further generations of Qataris; decisions made today will have a strong bearing on the country's position well into the next century. The Qatar Investment Authority (QIA) is the engine driving economic participation in a diverse range of projects that will, the Finance Ministry in Doha confidently predicts, one day earn more revenue than that provided by gas. It is, the government stresses, therefore important that decisions on expansion and development should be taken by democratically elected representatives of the community they serve.

While most delegates accepted the will to establish workable democracies, there were those who questioned whether the balance of power would shift significantly in the foreseeable future. Canada-based Iraqi Scholar Dr Sayyar Al Jameel, noted that Shura--derived from the verb Istashar (to seek advice, counsel, or an opinion)--is a voluntary option for a ruler, without obligation for him to follow its direction. Dr Al Jameel said that in a parliamentary democracy the elected executive must follow the choice of the majority where, unlike the Shura system, the government is accountable to the elected parliament on a daily basis and to the electorate at the end of its term in office.

Dr Jameel also pointed out, with a handful of others including Lord Geoffrey Howe, former British foreign secretary and chancellor of the exchequer, that true democracy requires a total separation between the religious establishment and the State.

With political correctness hovering above the delegates' heads, and the deep desire to avoid any mention of a 'clash of civilisations' or 'clash of values', the vast majority of participants, including western leaders, shied away from getting involved in the secular argument about Church (or Mosque) and State, perhaps for fear of scratching the sensibilities of Muslim participants.

Several sensitive points, however, were catapulted to the forefront of the debate, often sending the compass of discussion into uncharted waters that had little to do with the title or the subject of the ongoing session. But this is exactly how free and unscripted debate might be expected to evolve.

Arab regimes were bitterly criticised by a former Bahraini minister, Dr Ali Fakhroo, for being incapable of dealing with the outside world on an equal footing. "We have corrupt political and financial systems and weak and backward societies," announced Dr Fakhroo, adding that what the Arab world needs are civil societies to face the external world and this, he observed, is not possible without having democracy in our midst.

Tribal and ethnic bickering, lack of unity and social justice and near absence of civil societies across the Arab nation were identified by Dr Fakhroo as part of the major malaise the region suffers from. "Democracy is a must to help secure the future of the nation," he insisted.

Iraq was the elephant in the room, the issue nobody was in a hurry to address. However, Jack Straw, the former British foreign secretary who headed the UK delegation, discovered the elephant was very definitely there when he put his foot in it by pointing out that one of the bonuses of being a democracy was that democracies do not normally attack each other. Dr Amr Mousa, secretary general of the Arab League and former Egyptian foreign secretary, was swift to retort that if democracies didn't attack each other why did they feel it was acceptable to join forces to go to war with other countries? His remarks met with loud applause from the distinguished audience, far removed from the so-called 'Arab Street' but most clearly fans of the inimitable Dr Mousa.

Anger over Iraq, the war on terror and what is perceived as double standards by the West over democracy, as well as confusion--on all sides--about Islamism, somewhat distorted the usually rich debate about democracy, although lamenting its lack some seven years on is still an annual feature of the Doha gatherings. Almost all Arab elites expressed grave concerns about the 'democratic deficit' in their region. But whether in power, or not, the majority see the deficit as everyone else's fault but their own; western conspiracies over regional resources, former colonial interests and, of course, Israel and the Jewish lobby, were accused of putting the brakes on advancing democracy among Arab nations. However, the collective mood of Arab participants was deeply resentful of being told they needed to adopt a western model, let alone have it 'imposed' (a key word used by many Arab participants) upon them by foreign armies.

Dr Mousa, who seemed to have done his homework well, qualified his exclusion of 'imposed' models by citing his homeland's recent history of homegrown democracy by referring to the Egyptian parliament that started over 160 years ago, growing from a small governing council, originally consisting of 50% appointees and 50% elected members, to become a fully elected body by 1866. From this humble entity grew Egypt's Westminster-style multiparty democratic system, where the majority party formed the government by 1923. The system in place in Egypt until the 1952 military coup put an end to it, proving perhaps that no political system can be guaranteed to exist forever.

A point of friction emerged when liberal and secular thinkers from the region objected to what they see as a myth perpetuated by the West, that the only opposition that exists to autocratic regimes in the Middle East are the Islamist groups.

A worrying thought for some was how easy it appeared for many western politicians to accept the Islamist jihadists' claim that they have eschewed violence and chosen the democratic road, without presenting a single coherent proposal that would pass in the West as a political party manifesto. But the idea that somehow gathering votes around a vague slogan of 'Islam is the solution', was not vigorously challenged in public debate for fear of the Islamists levelling accusations of apostasy or anti-Islamic bias.

"Those who still insist that there are no such things as 'moderate/mainstream Islamists' miss the reality," argued Kirsti Westphalen, a high ranking diplomat from the Finnish Foreign Ministry, in a compelling conference contribution. "Without the active participation of moderate Islamists, calls for political transformation in the Arab world are bound to be irrelevant to the larger social fabric and harmless to authoritarian regimes." Although few challenged this notion during the session, many, especially women, later expressed deep scepticism. Discussions in the corridors, the lobby and the dimmed bars of the Ritz Carlton (where the conference was held), were richer, better informed and frequently made a great deal more sense than those being held inside the structured, time limited official sessions, where generally somewhat guarded contributions were made from the floor. The dilemma, as an Egyptian woman journalist argued later over a drink in the bar, is that Ms Westphalen would not have to live under Shari'ah (strict Islamic) law, where women are forcibly veiled and non-Muslims are subjected to paying gizyah, if she was proved to be wrong about Islamists taking power through the ballot box.

The Egyptian journalist and other liberal women from the region said it was wishful thinking to pretend Middle Eastern societies have viable liberal or democratic opposition movements with enough resources to enable them to win elections. Even in nations that once enjoyed liberal multi-party western style democracies, like Egypt, those forces no longer exist in a form that can win votes without the existence of the liberal political tradition and civil society.

However, like our companions in the Ritz Carlton bar, the majority of women who spoke frankly in a non-official capacity, including non-Muslims and liberals in Doha, doubted whether any Islamist party is ready to pass the tests of power beyond their slogan 'Islam is the solution', first they must show they are able to balance a budget, provide services and create jobs.

Islamic groups represent a wide range of attitudes but neither they nor their literature has so far presented a coherent picture of the kind of status they envisage for women and non-Muslims in their 'ideal society' governed by Shari'ah Law. As one Algerian liberal put it: "The Islamists want one man, one vote, one time," adding that he and other liberals in Algeria had reluctantly supported the military coup in 1992. Although he was a democrat, he saw the coup as the lesser of two evils. "There is a fair chance of a military coup transforming the system into a civilian democracy, but once Islamists are in power and Shari'ah is implemented, there is no way we can return to civil society," he said.

Such an intervention focused minds on an important issue--that democracy means much more than just elections. It takes years to create a political culture that internalises the concepts of accountability, transparency, respect for human rights, civil society, free media and loyal opposition, a point stressed by the UK's Lord Howe and several parliamentarians and commentators including Kuwaiti academic Dr Ayaed El Mannah.

Nevertheless the Doha forum on democracy, development and free trade should be counted a success and year on year it is earning itself a respected position among similar events held annually in Europe and the Middle East. Since it was first held in Doha in 2000, the event has consistently attracted a high calibre of participants who enjoy the freedom to tackle sometimes unpopular and often controversial issues. According to Dr Mohammed Abdullah Al Rumeihi, who chairs the conference's standing committee, the forum attracted some 500 participants from 70 nations, with about 90 papers discussed. "We have no special aim or agenda behind the continuation of this forum," explained Dr Al Rumeihi, "we are only organisers, not theorists and we don't interfere in what takes place inside the halls." Nor did they interfere in the colourful discussions that went on into the small hours outside the halls.

Threats and dangers are mounting in a number of areas in the Middle East, underlining the real need for peace and stability. It is imperative that the solutions to these problems originate with the region if they are to have any hope of lasting success. The move towards democratisation and reform will require decisive action. But before the deed must come negotiation and debate and for this, Doha seems a better place than many to set the ball rolling.