Reform and democracy
Democracy and reform ought to address and overcome social conflicts. Little in the American model reassures Mohamed Sid-Ahmed that this will be achieved
All protagonists in the Middle East now align themselves to democracy. No party would openly dare declare, as things were under fascism up till the end of WWII, to be an opponent of democracy. Despite this fact, definitions of what democracy is often clash.
In the name of democracy, the Bush administration has come forward with a momentous Greater Middle East project. Also in the name of democracy, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have declared that they have reservations concerning that project: "democracy cannot be imposed from the outside." While Colin Powell came out in agreement that democracy should "emanate from inside society", many Muslims and Arabs believe democracy should not contradict their belief that Shari'a should be considered the main (if not the only ) source of legislation.
So how to reconcile this understanding of democracy with the way it is understood in the West, where no differentiation is to be made on the basis of religion, ethnicity, gender, etc?
There is evidence that Egypt is keen to promote issues of reform, both on the Egyptian and pan-Arab levels, and from the theoretical and practical viewpoints. Last week, the Bibliotheca Alexandrina played host for a preliminary meeting of a symposium to be held on 12-14 March, under the auspices of President Mubarak, to discuss political, social and economic reform in Egypt and the Arab world at large.
This step was followed by a declaration of President Mubarak to Galal Aref, chairman of the Journalists' Syndicate, that he intended cancelling the law that sanctioned prison terms for libel and similar crimes in the field of publication, whether committed by journalists or by other citizens. Journalists who warned against replacing prison sentences by unusually heavy fines gladly received this declaration. Fines should remain within a given maximum and not be surpassed, they argued.
Aref is not the only chairman of a professional syndicate who belongs to the political opposition. Aref described his election as clear evidence that eagerness for change has now become irresistible. This is also true for the election of Sami Ashour -- another member of the Nasserite opposition -- to become head of the syndicate of lawyers three years ago, and for an independent candidate, Zakaria Abdel-Aziz, for the Judges' Club last year. We are now seeing a mindset in the country craving for fundamental change. The authorities are now aware of this fact. This feeling finds its clearest expression in the symposium that is to be held next week at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina.
The central topic expected to attract the attention of the symposium is what should be understood by the word "reform". For reform to be effective, an agreement must be reached on how to implement it. And this involves the issue of democracy.
What characterises democracy is that it develops a rationale by means of which antagonistic contradictions in society are transformed into non-antagonistic contradictions; that is, into contradictions which can be overcome and resolved amicably. Of course, this is not expected to happen in a society under legislation that confiscates citizen rights to express ideas, to demonstrate openly and to go on strike peacefully. How can we be talking of strengthening democracy when Emergency Law becomes the rule, not the exception? How can we be talking of freedom of expression if a gathering of no more than five individuals is regarded as a threat to social peace and tranquility, even if no crime is committed?
What must be seen as fundamental is that in the eyes of the West the issue of democracy is regarded as the central theme, while the very notion of democracy is itself shrouded in much ambiguity and confusion. For instance, no distinction is being made between military occupation and democracy. We ignore the fact that, in the case of military occupation, antagonistic contradiction is being upheld while democracy is defined as transforming antagonistic contradictions into contradictions that are not antagonistic. The United States, which claims that democracy is its guide, often applies policies that can hardly be considered as implementing a democratic mode of conduct. This is particularly true when looking into Washington's military occupation of Iraq. Is America able to respect its commitments when it comes to withdrawing its troops from Iraq? The US has ignored its promises on this topic more than once. Recent statements, which carry no ambiguity, assert that US troops might have to remain in Iraq for years to come, not weeks or months.
The issue we believe must be made absolutely clear is that the democracy we are calling for must not be ambivalent on the issue of military occupation, and all the more so on the issue of interfering in the internal affairs of states. Democracy must be based on internal rather than on external factors and should leave no room to exploit internal contradictions and use them as instruments to adversely affect national unity. This is a battle that cannot be waged artificially, but has to be built on solid foundations.
Reform must thus take into consideration the views and interests of the various national forces, that is, dealing with each of them as a subject, not an object of history, and that there be a continuous effort to reach some form of equilibrium when it is required from the various parties to make concessions and sacrifices.
This entails coming to terms with what is subjective as a prerequisite for dealing correctly with what is objective. Thus, there should be a readiness for self-criticism as a preliminary condition for criticising others; the more daring the self-criticism, the better. It could be argued that such an approach carries within it what can be seen as yielding and surrendering to the Other. But there is a greater danger in abstaining from self- criticism than in taking it too far, especially if we take into consideration that self-criticism bestows criticism with credibility, effectiveness and transparency.
Do self-criticism and the transformation of contradictions from antagonistic into non- antagonistic make violence in society redundant? What will violence become in this new setup? What happens to retaliation and revenge due to the harshness of confrontation and the acuteness of conflict, irrespective of who is responsible for what? Then further, are there not forms of antagonistic conflict that are legitimate? Where it is not only a right, but also a duty to keep the fight alive? How to measure legitimate violence? How to distinguish legitimate from non-legitimate violence? It would be unrealistic to believe that considerations emanating from the instinct of survival could be totally repressed and done away with.
These are issues that the Alexandria symposium should confront. To what extent antagonistic contradictions could become non- antagonistic? To what extent can democracy succeed in helping to achieve a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict? In overcoming Arab-Arab, eventually Islamic- Islamic, and not only Arab-Israeli, contradictions? These are dilemmas that face the Arab world, in conditions where reform has become vital for the very survival of an Arab entity in our present day world.
