On democracy

An issue standing at the forefront of Egypt's political life at this juncture is democracy. How to tackle this difficult topic, asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed

---

President Hosni Mubarak's meeting with the intellectuals this year is different from previous such meetings in that he concentrated on discussing the ideas of his interlocutors, especially those who expressed discordant points of view, rather than on presenting his own views.

Unfortunately, the debate was hampered by the acoustics in the hall, and many of the participants, myself included, were unable to follow much of what was said. But if the details of the debate were unclear, the general spirit of openness in which it was conducted came across very clearly. This prompted me to ask why this was not reflected in the media and why there was such an obvious discrepancy between the civilised exchange of views at these annual meetings and the strident way in which debates are conducted in the media. I proposed that an attempt be made to bring the two images closer and to devise mechanisms by which this rapprochement could be achieved. I also expressed surprise at the way some of the intellectuals present at the meeting, many of whom express their differences with government policies in no uncertain terms in the articles they write in the opposition papers and on satellite TV talk shows had so toned down their opposition at the meeting that the president himself had to probe how deep those differences ran.

Up to the time of this writing, the long- promised debate between the ruling NDP party and the opposition parties has not materialised. True, meetings have been held between opposition leaders and representatives of the NDP, but discussions centred on procedural matters not substantive issues. The two sides remain sharply polarised, and periodic attempts to bridge the wide gulf between them have fizzled out. Moreover, security considerations are invoked to justify not opening the debate to the wide public. The opposition parties have expressed doubts that the aim of the whole debate enterprise is simply to co-opt opposition personalities, not to undertable real dialogue between equals.

The main issue at the present time is to create a mechanism by which a national debate between all political forces can be initiated and sustained. Moreover, the ruling party's choice of interlocutors has been highly selective, with such broad-based parties as the Muslim Brothers banned from expressing their views through legitimate channels. There have been random attempts to launch such a debate but these have not been followed up, and the whole enterprise has boiled down to sporadic meetings at top leadership levels. Absent the continuity and focus required in any serious debate, these meetings enjoyed no credibility or even legitimacy in the eyes of many. There have been bilateral meetings with one or two key NDP figures, followed by a meeting at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina last March which issued a statement but had no practical consequences.

For such meetings to be effective, they must not assume the form of individual contacts. They must have a collective party character and develop debates then extend to the internal life of the interlocutors, not remain restricted to encounters at the summit of the respective organisations. The frame of reference should be neither the NDP alone, nor any specific combination of the parties recognised as "legitimate" by the Shura Council. The required national debate should be conducted within structural parameters that take the form of a network, not a line between two points in which one party is treated as more equal than others, and should be moderated by an institution set up for this purpose. And what role should the president of the republic play in such a debate and, more generally, in party life?

Ideally, the president in my view should stand above party polities, acting as a sort of referee between the parties and with no affiliation to any specific party. He should be a non-partisan arbiter, his decisions reflecting national imperatives not party interests in a democracy, the ruling party rules only because it has a majority of members in parliament who have been elected in free and fair elections, in many cases monitored by international observers with impeccable credentials and unquestioned credibility. The party system thus strikes a balance between the majority party and the opposition parties, which enjoy equal rights and opportunities.

For the system to work, corruption must be strenuously fought and those responsible brought to justice. Clinton was harshly condemned by the US system not because of his sexual pedeadilloes but because he lied in an attempt to pervert the course of justice, as did Nixon in the Watergate scandal.

Elections are the cornerstone of a democratic system. They are the ideal expression of the credibility of any candidate, of the trust he should inspire. That is why elections must be fair and honest and totally devoid of cheating or rigging. That is why accepting credible observers from abroad, as in the recent Palestinian elections, is so important. Among the characteristics of elections is to understand that success or failure should not be decided in the light of one single attempt, but as a continuous process. It is not the choice of a specific person that should be the key factor, but the rules respected to win the elections, the primacy of the law over the individual, not the opposite. The late French president François Mitterrand failed twice before winning the presidential election. And after having won once, he won a second term.

The whole idea of elections is that there should be a choice between a number of candidates. In other words, that there should not be a monopoly of power. What applies concerning a market economy should also apply to the political institutions in a democratic regime. Democracy means equal opportunities for all citizens. Having the law evolve through developing institutions is the way by which reform is correctly initiated.

It has often been said that Israel is the only real democracy in the Middle East. But can Israel be considered a democracy when it treats its Arab population as second-class citizens? It has also often been said that America is the most democratic nation in the world. But how democratic can America really be when its treatment of US citizens of Arab origin is reminiscent of the McCarthy era in post-World War II America, when leftists were ruthlessly hunted down as potential spice for the Soviet Union? The methods used in fighting communism under McCarthyism, a word that has become a synonym for witch-hunting, are like those used to fight terrorism today. That is not to say that Arab countries do not violate democracy, but they are not alone in doing so. The prisons of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib attest to the ease with which the values of democracy are trampled in today's world, even by countries that purport to uphold them and are quick to point the finger, and sometimes the gun, at those they accuse of violating them. At the end of the day, democracy is the product of a balance of power. No democratic regime can exist in a reactionary framework and the opposite is also true.