Across the world a movement for democratic futures is gathering, despite the United States and other inert and autocratic governments, writes Ayman El-Amir* Egypt's first genuinely contested parliamentary elections in more than 50 years got underway this week in an environment of mixed feelings of hope and anxiety. All those involved, including the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), the government, the state security machine, leading opposition parties and the voters themselves have a deep sense of a wind of change blowing over the country that will define its future direction. Egypt is not alone in feeling this political transformation. Millions of people in different countries and regions, caught in the vortex of historical change, are taking to the streets or to polling stations to claim their birthright of freely choosing their leaders, forming their governments and drafting their laws. A tough battle for democratic transition, unparalleled since the twilight of the colonial era in the mid-20th century, is just beginning. Elections of sorts have taken place this year in a host of countries including Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Liberia, Zimbabwe, Iran and Ethiopia, as well as elsewhere in others described as liberal democracies. Street protests, some of them bloody, have been staged over allegations of election fraud in Addis Ababa, Côte d'Ivoire, Zanzibar and Azerbaijan. In Zanzibar, the opposition United Democratic Front threatened general civil disobedience if charges of rigged elections were not investigated and redressed. On the other hand, more than 45 people were killed in clashes with riot police in Addis Ababa, following parliamentary elections that gave reigning Prime Minister Meles Zenawi five more years in office. Human rights activists in dozens of countries, including Syria and Tunisia, remain incarcerated, with some going on hunger strike. According to statistics, almost 40 per cent of the world's 193 countries are classified as undemocratic, with some emerging democracies of the fragmented former Soviet Union slipping back into autocratic rule. Forces of change are battling diehard autocratic regimes in Africa and Asia. These, in turn, are grudgingly granting measured concessions to the new actors who are determined to carry the process of democratic transformation to its ultimate goal. In one form, entrenched regimes are classical monarchies that believe in their God-given right to rule over their dominion. In another, they are the descendants of revolutionary coups that have integrated the powers of government, legislation and the judiciary in one grasp under democratic labels. They retain the privileges of the old monarchies they overthrew by revolution and invariably rule by decree in the name of the people. In their totalitarian approach, many of those regimes have given a modern context to King Louis XIV's historical axiom, " l'Etat c'est moi." That was how state security was pitted against individual security, assumed pre-eminence over civil rights and fundamental freedoms and replaced the rule of law with the rule of emergency law. Many of those regimes spent several decades building, training and equipping the state security apparatus and anti-riot troops. They fine-tuned the art of political manoeuvering and fostered alliances by lavishly rewarding supporters while mercilessly crushing opponents. By many years of repressive tactics designed to weed out political opposition, they inadvertently produced large-scale alienation that eventually triggered political terrorism. There is a certain ring of hollowness to the argument that the call for reform and democratic change is US-instigated and should, therefore, be shunned in favour of government-tailored reform packages. This is misleading in more than one way. First, it undermines the long and hard struggle of thousands of democracy and human rights activists, many of whom still languish in jails. Second, the US has never been a net exporter of democratic models to undemocratic countries. If anything, the US has a historical record of supporting tyrannical regimes that served its strategic interests. This remains true today as it was half a century ago. Third, the bi-polar superpower Cold War, which, in essence, was a zero-sum game, ended 16 years ago and there is no longer the worry that an independent developing country could drift from one camp to the other. In effect, what seemed to be a national outcry opposed to "reform imposed from abroad" was inspired by governments that were alarmed by widespread home-grown calls for the institution of civil rights and democratic rule. Despite half a century of restive submission, the mainstream tendency in countries aspiring to democracy surprisingly prefers orderly and peaceful transition rather than violent change. This is due to the fact that the bloody civil wars and ethnic cleansing of the last decade of the 20th century were more horrifying than anything the world had experienced in the post-World War II era. With the exception of Algeria, the heroic 20th century anti-colonial struggle, the negotiated decolonisation pacts and the bloodless coups that marked the emergence of many newly-independent countries pale in comparison to the ruthless crimes committed in Somalia, Rwanda, Srebrenica and the Congo in the latter part of the century. That is what makes the current global stirrings for the change to democratic rule and institution building a historic opportunity that should not be missed. Recalcitrant governments have more to worry about by opposing full democratic change than supporting it. People who have peacefully worked for the establishment of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights should not be left to slide towards extremist ideology or violent confrontation as the last resort. For it is the lack of democratic mechanisms for change that make extremism and terrorism essentially political, not security, issues. Security measures are needed to confront the phenomenon until political solutions are developed to address the root- causes. They may temporarily halt or reduce the recurrence of violence but will not resolve the problem. What is needed is that ruling oligarchies take a chance with genuinely free and fair elections that would give voters the freedom of choice. After decades of pressure against a huge, old and rusty door, the forces of change have put a foot in. As they keep pushing to open the door wider, other forces behind it are mustering hard resistance. In this tug of war, the result is not a guessing game, but rather an educated reading of the directionality of history. There is always the chance of a win-win situation, if only apprehensive regimes could sensibly learn the lesson of the healthy rotation of power, which is now peacefully exercised in liberal democracies. Other countries at a high cost in life and hard sacrifice attained this proven political practice, and the spirit of compromise. It is now freely available for education, experimentation or adaptation. Adopting the ballot box as the only legitimate means of democratic change will, in both the short and long run, prove less costly than circumventing it. * The writer is former Al-Ahram correspondent in Washington and director of the UN Radio and Television.
