Freedom of expression is less dangerous to the foundations of the state than its absence, writes Ahmed Naguib Roushdy* The recent presidential and parliamentary elections in Egypt directed a searchlight on a recognised constitutional fact; that the people are the source of power and that the democratic government is selected and functions at the pleasure and approval of the people, the real sovereign. The development of principles of international law and universal rights, recognised by the international community either in multilateral treaties or as binding customary law, obligates governments to ensure and protect the human rights and liberty of its people in times of peace and war. This is exactly what can be deducted from President Hosni Mubarak's speech at the Summit Meeting of Heads of States and Governments convened last September at the United Nations in New York, celebrating the 60th anniversary of the United Nations. In his speech, President Mubarak said that Egypt had gone far along the democratic path towards political development based on plurality by conducting open presidential elections with candidates fielded from 10 political parties. The president reaffirmed Egypt's continuing endorsement of international efforts in the field of human rights. He also called for extending the reach of human rights reform to the core of the matter. Naturally the international community is expecting Egypt, a leader in the Middle East, to follow up with more constitutional and other reforms, fulfilling its international obligations and government pledges to the people, allowing to be weaved a new democratic apparel that may help situate the country among the civilised nations of the 21st century. Freedom of the press and of opinion is needed now more than ever. It is true that opposition newspapers were recently allowed a degree of freedom to criticise government officials and members of the cabinet, but it seems that there was a red line not to be crossed. Also the recent presidential and parliamentary elections showed how thirsty the people are for expressing themselves. But I concur with other writers that the new democratic stage will not be satisfactory unless freedom of expression is properly practiced and the door should be wide open beyond the present situation for the people and the press to express their opinion without fear of intimidation or prosecution. Essential freedoms -- especially freedom of expression -- are inalienable to the individual from birth, with infringement on these freedoms an assault on the individual's right to exist. The free exercise of the right to criticise the acts of government officials is demonstrative of the fact that the people are the real sovereign and that the government is only a representative of the people. Freedom of the press is attached to the freedom of expression, which gives it the strength to watch over the government and protect it from government censorship in societies of democratic institutions. In two articles in the Arabic-daily Al-Ahram (3 February 2000 and 7 September 2005), I set out the case as to why the press must be free of government control. The press is not the so-called "fourth estate," as has been advocated, but rather the people's eye. Freedom of expression and of the press is a reflection of a healthy society and of a proper public order. It is clear from the results of the parliamentary elections that the kind of People's Assembly that has emerged is far different from the past. A real opposition to the ruling party has been shaping up that cannot be stopped. It is a healthy trend in which the press bears a heavy obligation; that is, to report the news and not shy from honest criticism of the acts of government officials or other institutions. It should unveil corruption, which can ruin nations, and condone good acts that help strengthening the country. A press which publishes what the ruler likes to read or hear, or is under the sphere of influence of interest groups, local or foreign, is one that does not deserve respect. Writers and reporters must be free to express their opinions; they cannot produce anything of value if they are restricted or corrupt. Freedom of expression gives the individual the right to speak up or to write or read, it also allows the individual to be silent. Therefore, it will be an infringement of this right to penalise a voter who abstains from going to the polls to cast his or her vote in public elections. It is good for the people to participate in the elections, which gives the voter the sense that he or she is making a difference in the governing of the country, but to force the voter to do so by imposing a fine for not going to the polls is wrong, and moreover another way to muzzle free expression. Many writers and philosophers spoke about freedom as a part of the human being and a quality of the thinking mind; without it the person would be inanimate and a slave. John Stuart Mill and John Locke wrote about freedom as a political principle, but it was Mill who fully enmeshed it in a philosophical theory. The Islamic historian and jurist, Ibn Khaldun, who preceded Adam Smith in calling for open markets and free trade by 400 years, said in his famous work Al-Muqaddema that restricting people's freedom would preclude the advance of economic development and commercial exchange. Modern economists and writers still consider that there is a connection between freedom and the welfare of nations. Amartya Sen, the Noble prize laureate of 1998, in his book Development As Freedom, advocated that small and poor countries should be free to choose the economic path for them and to catch up with new technologies in a global world. So freedom is a right of nations as it is a right of individuals. But respect for individual freedom is not a one-sided issue; it mandates that the individual should respect and defend other people's rights of freedom of expression, no matter their opinion. The government should not be impatient with the exercise of free expression and of a free press and the legislature and the judiciary should make sure that these freedoms are guaranteed and protected. On the other hand, members of the press should be fair and true in their review of government acts, and of news about the country problems or progress. That is not to say that democratic societies are free from discrepancies and system flaws. We have seen how news media in the United States and Britain left unquestioned the invasion of Iraq, at least in the beginning (except for a few writers who later were subject to government intimidation and silencing). Not any more. President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair have lost the confidence of their parties and their own people, who are now demanding a withdrawal from Iraq and the end of prisoner torture and abuse. The New York Times, in one editorial, apologised to its readers that it was not truthful in reporting news about Iraq. And in another editorial appearing 17 November 2005, the paper admitted to its readers that it was "completely wrong in [our] presumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction". It is well known that President Bush resorted to accusing opponents of being un-American -- that they were appeasing and helping terrorists in their opposition to his policy. He lately used the same tactic after the US Senate rejected his new law to legalise torturing terrorism suspects, and after it passed a resolution on a vote of 79 to 19 asking the Bush administration to provide regular reports on progress in Iraq and to prepare the grounds for a significant transition to full sovereignty for Iraqi people by the end of this year. President Richard Nixon tried similar tactics during the Watergate scandal. He ended up resigning to avoid impeachment. It was the US media that pushed him out. It is easy to become a tyrant, even in democratic countries, but the smart ruler is the one who can envision that freedom of expression and freedom of the press will shield him or her from much stronger dangers: terrorism and coup d'états. Freedom helps individuals to exhale the anger in their chests instead of it going underground. Freedom would allow the government to listen to and to debate with its opponents, which may help correct mistakes. It opens a new horizon for the faithful in different religious persuasions to better understand their faith and tolerate others. Nobody is immune from making mistakes, which can be corrected with an open mind. The ruler who believes in freedom and human rights is a strong and a wise one. It is the weak that choose to be dictators. * The writer is an attorney at law.
