Democracy is not a numbers game. It is not the domination of one group over another just because they have one more vote than all their opponents put together. Democracy doesn't work like that. Similarly, in a democratic system people have to live by the rules. They can't cry foul if their opponents win an election, but they must abide by the system under which they contested that election and wait for the next opportunity to vote. This is, in fact, an unfortunate trend we have seen in Africa in recent years, where people have challenged the results of elections if their chosen candidate did not win. In Western democracies, though, people of opposing political views are prepared to accept the electoral victory of their opponents, because they know that, once elected, their opponents will work within the law and will respect the rights and the opinions of those people who did not win. Though they may disagree with it, people accept the majority decision. There are always winners and losers. Every four or five years governments change. Different political parties are voted into office and there is a cycle of change built into the system. So, whilst government by consensus may not be the norm in most democracies, there is nonetheless a basic respect for the system itself and people have learned to work within legal and constitutional frameworks. One party may have the most seats in a parliament, but it rarely rides roughshod over the party in opposition. Both government and opposition know that either of them may well return to power at the next election. This is how democracy works. In the United States, for example, we have a President from one party and a legislature dominated by another party. France has seen this before. Georgia experienced it only recently. Such differences of belief, though, whilst difficult do not bring the whole system to an end. If anything, they are a guarantee that democracy is working in those countries. In a democratic system, governments are chosen through the ballot box for a fixed number of years. There is also within the democratic system another way in which people are given the chance to make their voices heard. This is by the use of a popular referendum. Whilst that may be the norm in Switzerland, in most other democratic countries policy decisions are left for the elected government and a referendum would be something out of the ordinary. In the nations of the West people sometimes do take to the streets in protest, but this is usually over one particular issue. Vast crowds, for instance, came out in protest all over Europe and North America against the US invasion of Iraq. Large numbers of people recently took to the streets of Washington DC to protest against birth control and abortion legislation in the United States. But very rarely, in fact hardly ever, do these legitimate street protests call for regime change. Street protests here in Egypt are a right that have been won by the blood of martyrs. But street protests must respect the law and the Constitution approved by the nation, just as the elected government must do the same. It is not possible in any discussion of democracy and freedom of speech to ignore what has been happening lately. The horrific attacks against women protesters that have been taking place in Tahrir Square and other places in recent weeks, and which some Muslim leaders have tried to justify, bring shame on the whole country. Shame, indeed, on those who try to use religion to justify such crimes. Who could ever imagine Prophet Mohamad (pbuh) doing such a thing? The right to protest is a right, if properly enjoyed, by all people, regardless of gender or religion. It is not acceptable, then, to defend the achievement of the revolution of January 25 for all of Egypt's citizens to have a free voice, and then deny that voice to women. Within the bounds of what is legal, freedom of speech is precisely that and no one has the alternative right to decide just what can be spoken and what cannot. Too many Egyptians have died over these last two years to give up that right of all the citizens to freedom of speech. For many years, Egypt had a parliament in name, but few would suggest that there was any real democracy. Dominated by the former regime, the job of the parliament was simply to give its assent to whatever the regime wanted. Neither the parliament nor the country knew anything of political debate or legitimate dissent. Egypt's real democracy, then, is still in its very earliest stages. Although there has been a parliamentary system here for almost a century, it is as though democracy has been newly discovered. In all truth, most people have not yet fully understood how democracy works. Democracy is most certainly not the tyranny of one political group over another. Nor is it the rule of the mob. Nor is it the refusal of one group to accept the elected authority of another. When the now jailed former president left office he left the country with no real figure to take over. In fact, it had been the express policy of the former regime to prevent political discussion and to stop anyone coming up through the ranks to appear as a possible successor or to challenge the succession already chosen by the regime itself. When that president fell, the nation fell into chaos because of his policies. We are now living with the fallout from that chaos. During these chaotic days, we are seeing figures emerging who would try to be the nation's leaders. Some of them are yesterday's men; others have no experience of government at all. What is important to realise, though, is that once the dust settles Egyptians will be running their own affairs. Neither foreign countries, nor unelected groups will be the ones with the final say. Egyptians alone will decide their future. All the shouting at the moment is, inshallah, the beginning of a vibrant democracy – but it takes a long time to get there. We have begun to see this process at work in parliamentary and presidential elections, but these are just the beginning in Egypt's long road to a true and working experience of democracy. Democracy is very untidy and very imperfect. That is why so many people feel frustrated by the process itself. But in a world of imperfect men and women it is the least bad way we have to defend the rights of all the citizens. A benign autocrat might be preferable to some, but the experience of the Arab world has given us proof enough that autocrats have the tendency to stop being benign after a few years in power. In these uncertain days Egypt needs consensus, not polarised ideas. It needs dialogue, not shouting. If Egypt's politicians are to work in the national interest, they need to be listening to one another for the good of the people. The challenges facing the country are too great for politicians to be wasting their time jockeying for positions of power. In the twenty-first century we have children without shoes on their feet and families who go to bed hungry. These are problems crying out to heaven to be solved and they come before any ideology or creed. If foreign countries can stay out of it, either with their money or their behind the scenes interfering, Egyptians might finally see that it is only by working together that national wounds will be healed. British Muslim writer, Idris Tawfiq, teaches at Al-Azhar University and is the author of nine books about Islam. You can visit his website at www.idristawfiq.com, join him on Facebook at Idris Tawfiq Page and listen to his Radio Show, “A Life in Question," on Sundays at 11pm on Radio Cairo 95.4 FM.
