• The Democracy of Underdevelopment

The Democracy of Underdevelopment

General and presidential elections have recently taken place in a number of countries and communities in our so-called Middle East (rather than "Arab" or "Muslim") region in which the media with its powerful tools and inventions were widely used, urging the peoples to vote and exercise their rights to choose their representatives and rulers who will manage their public affairs and save them from the deep-rooted ignorance, poverty and disease triad.

The countries in which these democratic elections were held almost completely represent the real conditions of their peoples who have a common historical infrastructure which has governed the progress movement of these communities. The religious common denominator is Islam, and all these communities have been subject for nearly fifteen centuries to such rule that derives its legitimacy in theory from the Quran but in practice from military power which it holds and favours.

This legitimacy remained the same even after the transfer of the centres of power from Damascus to Baghdad, Cairo and Istanbul following major bloody conflicts which brought a certain tribe, family or sect to power, costing the peoples a heavy price. Over the years, those rulers have developed their values, traditions and practices of governance and statesmanship.

Western colonialism inherited the rule of this region and subjected it its economic and political benefit, retaining such old practices, traditions and values that it found fit to maintain its power. Its alleged spread of democracy was just a false attempt to give justification for its occupation of the region on the pretext of saving its peoples from backwardness and achieving modernity.

Unfortunately, national rule in the post-colonial period followed the same legacy of military power as the only appropriate power scientifically and culturally qualified to start the building of the new state which was long delayed because of backwardness and colonialism. However, following the end of colonialism - which has apparently made a comeback the ruling forces have been engaged in power conflicts away from the peoples who have over the years inherited a culture of total submission to the will of the ruler whose legitimacy is derived from his military power used to control society. But the peoples, the owners of land and wealth, have no place in such power conflicts and transfer of power between the holders of military force and security forces.

Democratic contradictions!

Have today s real conditions of the peoples suddenly become a democratic reality with all ingredients for freedom and awareness that qualify the peoples to elect the best rulers and lawmakers and hold them accountable for their actions? Have the peoples given up traditional political systems, practices and culture, a legacy from periods of domination, widespread ignorance, poverty, and hunger coupled with population explosion on a limited space in terms of agricultural and industrial production?

Today’s election experiments in our region present a common fact: The elections are held by the ruling authorities who possess power, particularly military power. That’s why the results are always in favour of these authorities who control the media and employment in the civil service, companies and factories, in addition to invisible security agencies everywhere.

However, man, who is required to make the choice, is more important and effective than the ruling force. Individuals, who are the human resources of such communities, are not qualified to make the right choice. Most of the communities where elections were held have things in common: low standard of living and high percentage of illiteracy and dropouts, which have a negative influence on the standard of awareness of political rights as well as of knowledge, which is a basic ingredient for progress.

A society which is in need of more than 3,000 teachers in its southern part alone, implies that there are serious problems in terms of the provision of well-qualified teachers, in addition to bloody tribal and ethnic conflicts, poverty and poor health care in large parts. Can such a society establish democracy, intellectual and political freedom and a smooth transfer of power? This situation in Sudan applies equally well to Iraq which has been suffering from instability and lack of development for tens of years for several reasons, mainly rivalry among the military over power which has exhausted itself in bloody internal conflicts and wars with neighbours for tens of years, in addition to draining material and human resources alike. Do we trust the choices of the members of such a depressed society suffering from the above-mentioned problems (poverty, fear and ignorance) and a great number of dropouts due to orphanage, hunger and family breakdown, in addition to disease and poor health services? In other words, is such a society able to elect the best rulers and MPs at a time it is still witnessing a virtual civil war in the form of sectarian and ethnic strife?

There are no many differences between the above experiments and the next Iranian one. Despite all that is said about the democratic Islamic experiment and rule which is over thirty years old, we only see a democracy which is centred round a sole leader with absolute power which he derives from heavens and the unknown and the domination of military forces and security agencies whose will must reflect in ballot boxes. The people must elect MPs according to the will of the leader and the authorities who are in control of all aspects of living-political, economic and moral, and decide who is eligible to stand for election and to vote as well as determine the limits of freedom for citizens and the taboos that may not be broken.

Between form and content

Looking at the political forms which are described as democratic in these communities and countries classified as underdeveloped (underdevelopment here refers to lack of freedom and will rather than of material wealth) shows that they have nothing to do with the essence and content of real democracy as philosophy and thought and its role in the building and administration of countries and communities, and deep roots in the mentality of individuals and governments alike. This is the case of western democracy which we are trying to copy in name only and ignore or even resist its content.

Iranian society, which has witnessed turbulent movements particularly by the younger generation since the result of the recent presidential election was announced, is suffering from economic crises which made unemployment rate reach 12% of the total population, an alarming rate with which many negative social signs are associated, especially in the light of the heavy cost of armament and economic blockade by many superpowers. The actions taken by the authorities in the aftermath of the election show that military power and security have priority over democracy and freedom.

The extremely excessive use of suppression in a society stricken with poverty, disease and ignorance cannot become a democratic one but rather suffers from ethnic, sectarian and tribal divisions and violence with the authorities unable to deal with these problems which they have created. There are many examples of this in ancient and contemporary history, the most recent of which are Iraq in which ethnic conflicts led to an almost separate Kurdish state in the north, and Sudan where preparations are under way for the independence of the south. There is other ever-increasing violent ethnic, sectarian and tribal conflicts in the Middle East which the democracy of the military and security forces fail to handle.

In this connection, it may argued that some important democratic experiments, such as India, are a success and achieved stability and development despite a high rate of poverty and illiteracy and ethnic and sectarian diversity. But we have to investigate the ingredients for the success and development of the Indian experiment, which is a good example to follow, particularly in view of the many similar social components.

The Indian experiment

A worthwhile experiment, the result of long suffering which transformed the concept of democracy into a general belief and culture for the poor and rich alike who are keen to consolidate and develop it.

The major factor which led to the success of the Indian experiment is that it emerged from the people and its popular party leaders, not from the military authorities as is the case in our Arab region. Having got rid of British colonialism, the experiment initiators rose to this big challenge as they, starting with Mahatma Gandhi, were firm believers in democracy. There is no country other than India with such an extraordinary number of sects, languages, religions and cultures, in addition to geographic and climatic diversity and different levels of economic development. Despite all the ethnic and sectarian problems and conflicts which India witnessed in the aftermath of independence, its democratic leaders took on such a big challenge which transformed its major weaknesses into strengths in contrast to the American slogan from the many to one, whereas the Indian ore is from the many to more.

Thanks to this deep understanding of multi-party democracy which secures religious, class and ethnic diversity, India has always been able to overcome the difficulties facing democracy, make all citizens contribute to national effort and separate religion from politics with equal freedom of conscience and belief, having been replaced with freedom of the homeland for all.

Jawahalal Nehru, the first Indian prime minister and Gandhi s disciple, devoted all his life to the cultivation of democratic habits, values and traditions among his people, namely the scorn for dictators and respect for the parliamentary and constitutional system. In this way he set an example which all his successors followed. He established democratic values to such an extent that his daughter Indira Gandhi was ashamed and sought the Indian people s forgiveness when she declared a state of emergency in 1975 which lasted for 21 months and suspended freedoms. Out of respect for the values which she inherited from her father she decided to hold free elections in which she was crushingly defeated. That was the ideal response to Indian society which embraced democratic principles to the full.

Instead of comparing ourselves with the Indian experiment we have to use it as a guide if we want to change to democracy and keep up with the spirit of the times. In their attempts to democratic transformation in the Middle East, the Arab elite should give priority to the cultivation of democratic values by all means in Arab societies and set a model of leadership, as Gandhi, Nehru and Indira were in India, as a condition for achieving true, effective political democracy.

A free society can produce a population aware of their interests in a safe, stable and productive homeland, for democracy as thought and philosophy embodies its basic principles: majority rule, protection of minority rights, separation of the legislative, executive and judiciary, division of powers, representation and election, rule of law, equality before the law, decentralization in decision-making and smooth transfer of power.

The principles of democracy

These basic principles are the true essence of the principles of democracy rather than just administrative procedures in form, starting with queues casting their ballots in boxes in the morning and ending in the announcement of results in the evening. Democracy is then a daily lifestyle from birth to death.

The Arab elite today have a special responsibility in this respect. They should promote these principles through the Arab media, all stages of education, support of liberal concepts which respect all different views.

Unfortunately, a review of Arab satellite TV programmes and interviews shows that the culture of democracy is absent in the Arab mentality. Dialogue often takes the form of a heated argument, with the guests engaged in attack and counterattack, without respect for or listening to one another. These signs are the legacy of a totalitarian culture in individuals and groups and the result of the work of cultural and media organizations doing the job of organizations of oppression rather than forums for the freedom of expression and conscience and the promotion of tolerance and coexistence within society.

Sulaiman Al-Askary

Resource: 1