Why such a great fear of democracy? Galal Nassar examines the pathology of apathy In spite of the growing gulf between the ruling elites and the people and the latter's lack of confidence in the current authoritarian regimes, the vast majority of public opinion remains doubtful, if not suspicious, of the idea of change. It is uncertain whether the public has a clear idea of what change means apart, perhaps, from different faces at the top or, at best, different sectarian, ethnic or social affiliations on the part of the groups holding the reins of power. This would largely account for the isolation and the narrow grassroots bases of Arab opposition movements. It would also help explain the closed horizon in Arab societies despite the clear comprehension that change in government and in society is not only necessary but inevitable. Because of the absence of any moral and intellectual dimensions of change, the pressures weighing down on society do not propel it forward, as is the case in soundly structured societies. Instead they generate sectarian, ethnic and nationalist fissures and implosions, an endless vicious cycle that only plunges society deeper into the mire of anger, frustration and crisis. In large measure this grim condition stems from the ability of ruling authorities over several decades to eliminate all traces of a civil constitutional and modernist culture, such as that which had begun to emerge in the era of the Arab awakening and the struggle against European colonialism. This, in turn, brought a reversion to a pre- modernist consciousness that perceives any social order as the product of fate. Its mechanisms, rather than being seen as the fruit of conscious human resolve and endeavour, a consequence of the political and moral choices of certain members of society that can be influenced by and subject to scrutiny and revision by the rest of society, instead defy any comprehension or analysis. In part the condition is the consequence of an erosion in the meaning of politics, which has been reduced in the general public's perception to a set of models for government -- socialist, liberal, Islamist or otherwise. These models are immutable, their aims and objectives indisputable, their success contingent upon the ability to attain power of a particular social group, whether owing to its privileged position in the military/security establishment, its alliance with outside forces, or a combination of the two. The average individual is helpless to determine the type of government that ends up controlling his/her future. There is a deep-seated intellectual, political and moral apathy. Whether the cause of this is despair and frustration at the inability to influence events or the mounting negative outlook towards both world and ruling powers, the result is the same: a prevailing attitude that change is not an autonomous act of the will of the people, but rather the product of a combination of domestic and foreign forces beyond the reach of that will. Such thinking undermines the notion of active popular participation fundamental to democracy. Unfortunately, many see democracy not as a basis for building a new foundation for the distribution and exercise of authority and, hence, a new social contract based on equal rights for all, the rule of law, and the peaceful rotation of power. They regard it as an attempt to revive patterns of Western liberal rule that serve only the interests of a new clique that is striving to attain power against the backdrop of a changing international environment. Moreover, to many democracy looms as more dangerous than any previous system of government, something as pernicious as communism in the perceived threats it poses to religious and national tenets of collective identity. This fear may stem from the confusion between democracy and popular perceptions of the concept of individual freedom. Because of ideas successfully spread by Islamist fundamentalists and despotic Arab nationalists, individual liberty in the popular mind has become synonymous with licentiousness -- the freedom to do whatever pops into one's head -- and, therefore, paves the way to apostasy, unlawfulness and immoral conduct. Some ultraconservative religious pundits go so afar as to accuse advocates of democracy and proponents of individual and human rights of conspiring to turn the people into animals driven by base instinct, without moral or religious restraints. Whatever hope there is of changing this social dynamic from a breeder of strife and playground for domestic and foreign pressures to a proactive force in the quest for the development of democratic governing structures depends on the rehabilitation of the concept of freedom and such concomitant values as individual conscience, freedom of expression, the right to organise and the right to participate in public life. This, in turn, necessitates the resuscitation of the individual's sense of competence, faith in one's own ability to think rationally, contribute constructively and participate responsibly in public affairs. It also entails ending a self-directed racism which makes the majority of people believe that they do not have the wherewithal to determine their own fate. As a consequence they readily hand control over their affairs to a group of individuals they regard as an elite, entitled, for a variety of spurious reasons, to take fateful decisions and, simultaneously, to look down on the general public as their flock or, more crudely, the hoi polloi. Democracy presumes a higher self-regard. It presumes the ability of the individual to regard himself as a rational and moral being, capable of taking decisions affecting his fate, bearing responsibility for his actions and participating in shaping communal welfare. In this sense freedom does not mean freedom from social, moral and religious restrictions, as is commonly thought, but rather the acknowledgement of the individual as a sovereign being with as much right as the members of the so- called elite to act morally, legally and responsibly towards a greater good. Conversely, individuals can only become responsible citizens by demonstrating their ability to assimilate commonly held legal and moral values and act accordingly. Citizenship thus means the right of all individuals to be credited with the same human qualities, which are inseparable from the qualities of freedom and personal sovereignty. Democracy means more than a political order founded upon periodically held elections and the exercise of political and individual liberties. It is a programme for political, social and moral formation that enables individuals to overcome their sense of inferiority and instils in them the wherewithal to assume control over their own fate. As it elevates the individual's self-regard, this moral and political upbringing simultaneously leads people to elevate their sights beyond narrow personal interests and establish a new foundation of social solidarity centring around the common bond of citizenship and national allegiance, which transcends narrower sectarian, ethnic, kinship and regional allegiances. In effect, democracy is a process of human liberation. It frees the people who have historically been treated as a herd, incapable of intelligence or moral action and, therefore, in need of a supreme deterrent to keep them within strict bounds. Hence the historical concept of the absolute authority, a power free of all restrictions and independent of the popular will, and capable of keeping society corralled by means of might and primal or religious fanaticisms. To be frank, our inability to rise to the concept of an overarching national entity and our regression to authoritarian models is in large measure the fault of our intelligentsia, whose thinking and interplay have been confined for more than a decade to questions of identity and nationalism versus the colonialism that has blighted this region more than others. However, the realisation has begun to dawn that the real end of colonial influence can only be brought about through the elevation of the quality of life and awareness of the individual, and his commitment to and sense of responsibility towards the whole of society and not just himself and immediate family, as is the general case today. Clearly, the way to build a free and independent democratic society, untainted by all forms of tyranny and the deprivation of the rights of others, involves equipping society with the ability to assimilate the meanings of freedom, equality, personal autonomy and rule of law. This is the essential first step to instilling a more dynamic concept of change and generating the democratic forces capable of pursuing a humanitarian programme that engages the whole of society. Perhaps the energies of the intelligentsia would be better spent in this educational endeavour than in actually assuming the leadership of the drive to change. After all, a democratic order founded upon the active participation of the people presumes, first and foremost, a particular concept of what makes a "people". A people is not merely an amalgamation of persons living in the same geographical vicinity. It is a political relationship between individuals established on the basis of such principles as peaceful coexistence, mutual respect, equality and mutual support. It is a moral, cultural and legal order. Without such a moral framework, which forms the underpinnings of the concept of citizenship, there can be no sense of mutual trust, no communal bond, no collective will and, hence, no political order in the modern sense. What is left, then, is what we still have in place today: an authoritarian regime in which a clique of rulers remains in power by virtue of its control over the security agencies and in which the people have no proper understanding of the ethics and exercise of politics and no true national will, let alone an ability to articulate it. It is a life of absolute subordination to an "alien" authority and government, "alien" because both are imposed from outside society, even if the constituent members of the authority and government are natives of the country.
