A liberal future?
Is democracy the answer to our prayers or the opportunity the extremists have been waiting for? Hala Mustafa* makes the case for a liberal constitution
When Samuel Huntington wrote The Clash of Civilizations in the early 1990s, he specified several factors that set apart Western civilisation from other, less advanced, Eastern civilisations. The latter, he said, have little commitment to the rule of the law and the independence of the judiciary and show limited respect for individuality and individual initiative, for civil society and secularism (or, to be more precise, the regulation of the relationship between the religious and the political), as well as for equal rights among men and women, the powerful and the weak, the majority and the minority. To sum up, liberal culture is weak in Eastern societies.
Many would dispute Huntington's claim that a conflict is inevitable between East and West, but this topic is outside the scope of this article. I wish to focus here on Arab culture, a culture that is rather lacking in its liberal aspect. Liberalism is a relatively new term in the Arab lexicon, and one often misunderstood by the public. One of pioneers of liberalism in the 1920s, Ahmed Lutfi El-Sayed, aptly translated the term as the doctrine of "freedom lovers". Freedom, of course, is what liberalism is all about -- a means as well as an end. It is the means by which individuals seek progress, advancement, and civilisation. It is also the ultimate aim of civilisation, a promise of happiness. Humans are entitled to live in freedom, secure from the threat of repression, injustice, and tyranny.
Liberalism, in all its shades and colours, was the proud product of the European Renaissance of the 16 and 17 centuries. It came into being after long centuries of enslavement and repression by the Church, monarchies and aristocratic barons of the Middle Ages.
The French, British, Austrians, Germans, and Americans all have their own versions of the liberal doctrine, all of which sharing a common philosophical core. Descartes and Voltaire, Rousseau and Montesquieu, Hobbs and Locke, Hume and Smith, among others, have advocated human freedom and asserted the dignity of the individual. Without individual freedom, no society can achieve progress, they argued.
The freedom sought by liberalism is not confined to one aspect of life, but is the sum of many freedoms. Political freedom matters (the right of the individuals to choose their governments, participate in running their political affairs, and to select their representatives in government by a free vote), but so does economic freedom (ownership and private enterprise). Other basic freedoms are no less important, including the freedom of thought, creativity, expression, worship, and lifestyle.
What liberalism boils down to is the absence of coercion. Liberals do not advocate irresponsible freedoms or anarchism. Leftist anarchists who rail against the establishment are far from being liberal. Liberalism provides a legal basis for freedom in a manner that protects both individuals and society as a whole. This is why liberalism is closely linked to the supremacy of the law and the constitution and is often referred to as legal or constitutional liberalism. Anarchism focusses on the destruction of the status quo, whereas liberalism has always been a voice for construction, reform, progress, peaceful change, and modernisation.
Democracy is only one part of liberalism. Democracy, if applied in the absence of a liberal constitution to support and protect it, would be incomplete and perhaps counter- productive, for it could very well bring into office authoritarian forces bent on curbing the individual's freedom of choice. Such occurrences are not uncommon. Both Hitler and Mussolini were elected leaders, but they managed to take their countries down the road of ultra-nationalism, setting off one of the cruellest wars in history.
History can repeat itself and, to some extent, it has. In Europe, several ultra-nationalist officials have acceded to power through the ballot box (Austria, France, Germany). In the Middle East, there is more than one example. Iran is worth careful consideration for, despite its democracy, it has no liberal constitution. The result is that political and party pluralism in that country is limited to one specific political force, one that thrives on a particular political doctrine. Other political forces are deprived of their rights simply because they do not share that same doctrine. Iran has no individual or public freedoms worthy of mention. The resulting political stagnation has triggered a growing movement of popular protests, particularly among the rebellious young. This is a reminder that liberal constitutional rights for individuals of all persuasions are vital not only for democracy to be effective, but also for it to be sustained.
Constitutional liberalism has laid the groundwork for the growth, development, and progress of Western democracies (in America and Europe). It has also helped turn around some of the world's worst fascist and totalitarian regimes (post-war Japan and Germany). In Asia as in Latin America and Eastern Europe, liberalism is a credible force, but what about the Arab world?
Conventional wisdom has it that the Arab world is dysfunctional where liberalism is concerned. Either because of the traditional composition of Arab societies or the dominant ideological tendencies of the past few decades, the Arab world's definition of freedom is still limited. For the past few decades, Arabs focussed mostly on matters of independence and the confrontation with colonialism and the colonial heritage. For all their achievements, national liberation movements have failed, however -- by virtue of perspectives inherent in the ideological and political discourses adopted by them -- to provide the kind of vision and policies needed for reform, enlightenment, modernisation, and domestic reconstruction. This may explain some of the crises Arab societies experienced over the past few decades. Independence has been won, but many other things are lacking.
But while it may be true that some Arab societies lack a strong legacy of modernisation and enlightenment, it cannot be said that this applies in Egypt's case. With its history of stability, social homogeneity, and cultural and religious tolerance, Egypt has a rich liberal legacy that goes back to the late 18th century. The valuable contribution of Egyptian national liberal figures gave particular vitality to concepts of law and order, independence of the judiciary, citizenship, individual and public freedoms, freedom of the press, public education, religious education, women rights, pluralism, and trade unionism. Egypt's first constitution was enacted in 1923. With its commitment to freedom, equality, respect for the individual and the law, and non-discrimination, this constitution has left its mark on the constitutions that followed it and continues to inspire legislators to this day.
The contribution of Egypt's liberals was not confined to freedom of thought and expression, but extended to many aspects of political life. Liberal political parties, including the Umma and Wafd, had wide popular appeal. When divisions began to appear in the ranks of the Wafd, other liberal parties sprang into life, notably the Liberal Constitutionalists (Al-Ahrar Al-Dustourioun), who boasted among their ranks such eminent liberal nationalists as Taha Hussein and Mohamed Hussein Heikal.
Without going into detail concerning the political life and rivalries of that time, one can state with confidence that liberalism has been an integral part of this country's cultural and political traditions.
The liberal camp in Egypt was never given to loud or boisterous expression, yet its contribution to reform, modernisation, and enlightenment is undeniable. Just as the 1952 Revolution fought for independence and national liberation, the liberals fought for progress and freedom, for individuals and society alike.
Egypt has known a multiplicity of political experiences throughout its modern history, from the liberalism of the 1920s, '30s and '40s to the one-party system of the 1950s and 1960s. Liberalism, in particular, continues to enrich political life in this country and define its future path to modernity and to political and democratic reform.
The Arab region is going through a turbulent period of transition and change. Forces that widely differ in their ideological positions are now vying for power and control. As tradition locks horns with the elements of progress and change, modernisation may become a messy affair. This is a situation in which societies may relapse and modernisation may run out of steam. Instead of modernisation, democracy, and cultural openness, societies may slide back into traditional, even fundamentalist, patterns of thought. Examples of such reversals are already evident across the Middle East.
One mustn't be discouraged by such reversals. The success or failure of reform depend on the nature of the societies involved, the maturity of their elites, and the richness of their political and cultural legacies. Egypt is blessed with a unique legacy and a sophisticated intelligentsia. It has the ability, therefore, to become a genuine model of a liberal, modernising state in the region, whereby reforms are launched in a wide diversity of areas, and the active participation of a multiplicity of intellectual and political tendencies is mobilised and encouraged, thus initiating a cultural and political revival.
But it takes vision and resolve to turn such a potential into reality. Recently, the National Democratic Party has opened its doors for new ideas, launched an internal reform, and infused its leading ranks with new blood. Such initiatives may yet prove the way to end political stagnation and open new windows on the future.
* The writer is editor-in-chief of the quarterly journal Al-Demoqrateya (Democracy) published by Al-Ahram.
