Can democracy be simulated? Asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed It would seem that the word most often utilised in the present day political lexicon is democracy, but it is also the least implemented. And this, no doubt, is a serious defect because it signals the extent to which words and deeds are divorced from each other and how critical double standards are when things come to acts and, more seriously, to debating values. This should be an issue of concern for the Egyptian opposition, because, divers ideologically and divided organisationally, its different factions come up against a particularly difficult equation. Division is due to a variety of reasons: religious, political, social, etc. To overcome their internal contradictions, opposition forces have raised the slogan of uniting into a Common Front, on the grounds that they have in common one same political opponent, namely, the ruling National Democratic Party. But, given the fact, where to begin? And how to proceed? Ideological diversity breeds doubt in the coherence of the ideas of interlocutors. Organisational multiplicity generates barriers, which hamper communication with others. Division stands in the way of transparency and open talk. How to build, in such conditions, a Common Front? How to make it more coherent than an organisation with a centralised leadership? To what extent can democracy have a role to play in answering these questions? How effective can democracy be if applied satisfactorily? The US administration makes its relations with Egypt conditional of a correct implementation of democracy. This should imply, among other things, that no political figure is deprived of his freedom. No such person should be ill-treated and, eventually, tortured. This must also mean that Washington does not subject detainees accused of terrorism to ignominy, degradation, and even murder that challenges the wildest imagination. Yet, this is known to have been the case with concentration camps whose existence has been revealed, such as the Guantanamo and Abu-Ghreib prisons. Such practices have not been limited to these torture houses only. So how to talk about American democracy? In Egypt, Saadeddin Ibrahim, an intellectual, has been arrested and so has Ayman Nour, a political activist who ran for presidency against Mubarak and scored second rank. Both have been ill-treated. The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, has abstained from visiting Egypt as long as Noor was in captivity. It is, thus, clear that different views on democracy, and how it should or should not be applied, is an issue that can adversely affect relations between Washington and Cairo. It seems easier, in many situations, to appear as if the parties are simulating to respect the rules of democracy while actually not respecting them at all. But, more often than not, what appears in this scenario to be fruitful in the short term can very well end up with the opposite in the long term. In different locations all over the world, individuals have emerged who, despite having been subjected to all sorts of hardships, have not capitulated, and have finally demonstrated that they were the ones on the right side of History. Take, for instance, the Czech playwright Vaclav Havel who has, on and off, been arrested for prolonged periods, and because of his consistent stand, finished up by being overwhelmingly elected President of Czechoslovakia. Then, there is the legendary Ghandi, the Polish resistant fighter Leeh Walesa, and many others. When they launched their campaigns, it seemed for all these outstanding figures that they were out on the impossible mission of conquering the moon. But they were finally triumphant. Is this not a fact that should be meditated? We have here in Egypt an exceptional case as well, Ahmed Nabil El-Hilali, whose father was twice prime minister under King Farouk, and who has devoted his life to the cause of the working people. Nabil's respect for democracy has no bounds. I remember a visit of his to Moscow where, contrary to everybody I have known, he insisted, as a question of principle, on not exchanging hard currency for black market rates; as an ethical stand, and certainly not because it represented any material advantage. Applying the rules of democracy to trivial things help applying them to important issues as well, and help making them part and parcel of everyday behaviour. The rules of democracy are being perfected all the time. One should remember that democracy implemented thanks to elections is more authentically democratic than democracy applied through a referendum, because the central figure in a referendum is one individual, the head of the state, while in the case of elections, the whole society is involved in the democratic process. We must also remember that technology now available can very well play the role of an incentive for, and a deterrent against, those reluctant to deal with computers and perform complex calculations in a matter of seconds. Egypt's present prime minister is a pioneer in the field. At a time we are out to build "intelligent (electronic) villages", there is no excuse for not developing updated computer machinery and neglecting computer material devoted to the task of drastically improving the field of judicial accountability, on equal footing with other such domains. Democracy is a word still shrouded in ambiguity. It is also exposed to abuse, to all sorts of manipulation to picturing things for what they are not. But also, if correctly applied, it could produce wonders. What is difficult is to promote society until it produces wonders and not be deflected away from its right course by temptation or otherwise, thus missing the train, and falling victim to the opponents of democracy, transparency, accountability, etc. If we establish appropriate social conditions, society could be promoted from a world of backwardness to one of emancipation, to civil society and the rule of law, and become, by the very nature of such mechanisms, an engine for genuine reform.
