Monitoring democracy

Can a national non-partisan watchdog committee be set up to monitor Egypt's nascent reform process and ensure it is moving in the direction of greater democracy, asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed

---

With attempts to launch a meaningful reform process frustrated by one obstacle after another, it might be useful to examine the fundamental reasons for the eruption of repeated crises in order to find a way out of the impasse. In other words, we need to go back to basics. The first question we need to address is where to begin. The answer, I think, lies in the approach adopted by Palestinian presidential contender Mustafa Barghouti (not to be confused with Fatah activist Marwan Barghouti, currently serving four consecutive life sentences in an Israeli jail).

Running as an independent candidate for the presidency of the PLO, Barghouti based his campaign on an issue, not a person or a party. That issue was democracy, which became the rallying cry of his campaign. Of course, he was not alone in calling for democracy, which has become a catchword in the lexicon of all political forces in today's world. Everyone pays lip service to democracy, regardless of how closely they intend to apply it in practice whether they believe in it or not.

The second question is how to distinguish genuine democracy from sham democracy, a question to which it is all the more necessary to find an answer given the bearing it has on the principle that democracy cannot be imported and that each nation must develop its own national path to democracy. Here a distinction should be made between two different things, one is violations of the procedural aspects of democracy (such as the rigging of elections), which can be easily detected and rectified; the other is violations of its substantive aspects, which are more complicated to deal with because they can stem from differences in interpretation, and not from deficiencies in the process itself. Such misinterpretations are not necessarily self-evident, and can lead to ambiguities and confusion. Only a national debate in which all the players on the political stage agree on the terms of reference of a real democratic system can clear up these ambiguities.

It is ironic that America which describes itself as a bastion of democracy is now brazenly flouting the basic rules of democracy. The Guantanamo concentration camp in which prisoners are held without trial and subjected to physical and psychological torture is no normal prison. It symbolises a new concept emanating from the new realities of the globalisation process, which have emerged with the advent of the third millennium. In a throwback to the witch hunts of the McCarthy era, anyone suspected of sympathy for terrorism is taken into custody, denied all legal rights and shipped off to Guantanamo, to suffer all forms of indignities and human rights violations. It is to be hoped that last week's shocking disclosure of the desecration of the Holy Quran by depraved guards in Guantanamo will put an end to the mistreatment of prisoners. When great powers allow themselves to violate laws to this extent, there cannot be any expectation that other countries will be more respectful of the law. What is happening in Guantanamo is not unique; the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal is still fresh in our minds and there is a growing list of detention camps ill treating prisoners all over the world.

And what of parties that announce their readiness to respect the rules of democracy, but whose credibility is in question? For example, the Muslim Brothers now insist that they are ready to adhere to the rules of democracy. While this attitude is highly welcome, especially that it represents a clear departure from the language we are used to hearing from them, what really counts here is not verbal assurances that they will respect the law and the constitution, but the proof they present that they accept the principle of rotation of power and that, if elected by legal means they will not cling to power by illegal means.

The Muslim Brothers need to openly renounce the use of subversive measures to seize power. The recent statement of their supreme guide, Mohamed Mahdi Akef, that they will not accept any contacts with representatives of the US and EU without the knowledge and participation of Egypt's Foreign Ministry, is a step in the right direction.

Another important point the Muslim Brothers need to make is that they are open to discussion, that they are ready to listen to and accept the arguments presented by others, and that their aim is not only to peach, proselyte and impose their viewpoint on the world at large.

In the final analysis, the issue is to build a watchdog committee made up of the various political forces to test that the process of reform is proceeding along democratic lines. The members making up this committee will take part in the national debate, intervening to draw attention to mistakes and correct deviations. This does not necessarily mean that their opinion is the correct one. That will have to be decided by the whole mechanism of the democratic system. But the usefulness of the committee is to upgrade the democratic system and ensure its presence in the decision-making process.