 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 24 Feb. - 1 March 2000 Issue No. 470 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 24 Feb. - 1 March 2000 Issue No. 470
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Focus Heritage Profile Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Mullah madness
By Salama Ahmed Salama
Will Iran be the only state in the Arab/Islamic world to come so close to democracy? And is it really possible to mix Islam and democracy? Has the "mullahs' regime", as it is sometimes dubbed contemptuously, arrived at a formula in which the people can choose their rulers without coming into conflict with the clerics, who pretend to possess sacred competence in matters of government? We should ponder such questions as we watch the free, fair elections taking place in Iran. No interference with the ballot boxes is reported; in our region, on the other hand, elections are largely a theatrical performance. The elections in Iran are bringing in radical elements, which will produce changes in the balance of power more compatible with the aspirations, hopes and objectives of the Iranian people.
The Iranians are forcing East and West alike to revise their assessments. For years, the regime was said to be politically despotic, fanatic and reactionary, and the world community responded by boycotting and isolating it. The West is now watching the results of the elections with a pragmatic eye. It is comparing the reformists, who are moving toward commercial relations and greater political rapprochement, with the hard-liners, who have allowed anger and hatred to guide their policies.
For the West, all Muslim countries are incapable of understanding, let alone practicing, democracy since they are shackled by their own history and cultural legacy. All Arab and Islamic regimes which claim to practice democracy are repressive. We must learn from the experience of Iran, regardless of the results. It is true that the religious establishment has succeeded in disqualifying certain opposition candidates; still, conservatives, religious hard-liners and reformists were all competing at the polls. The number of candidates has risen since the last elections, and 400 women were registered as candidates. Even the regime's worst enemies were allowed to vote. There are no rumours that the authorities tampered with the ballot boxes or pressured voters. High turnout was the result of free discussion and debate in the press and society at large.
The Iranian regime has shown it can tolerate reasonably free elections, a rarity in this part of the world. Among the ruling elite, a majority believes that the clergy has no sacred right to rule. In the past 20 years, rapid political change has taken place in Iran. Free discussion and evolving attitudes have contributed to the creation of a democratic atmosphere. The Iranians have reaped greater freedom and the right to self-determination. The belief that the elections would be fair attracted thousands of young people and women to the polls; their participation in political life earned the regime democratic credibility.
It may be too early to pass judgement on the Iranian experience. The important point here, however, is that Islamic countries with large populations and rich civilisations are moving toward democracy: Indonesia, despite the errors and disturbances; Turkey, where power is wielded by the army; and Iran, despite the clergy's influence. The fact that all these examples are approaching political maturity fills us with hope that the Arab countries will forge their own version of democracy, suited to their own conditions. If anything, these examples show that political plurality is vital even in the most critical economic and social stages.
