For all the talk of democracy in Egypt, very few steps have been taken, or a clear path outlined, writes Amin Howeidi* Some may not like the title of this article, because they believe that we've already gone a long way towards democracy. Others would argue that we still have a long way to go. Each side have their own reasons, but perhaps it's time we agreed on a few things. For starters, let's agree that without democracy, we would be left behind, unable to catch up with the rest of the world. Democracy cannot be imported from abroad, for it is a home-grown product. I totally agree with Henry Kissinger, who says in his book American Foreign Policy that the fault of US policy is that it wants to apply to other countries its same democratic system, regardless of differences in environment, circumstances and interests. Let's agree that democratic systems in the US and other countries were not developed overnight, but took generations and much trial and error to evolve. So perhaps it would be naïve for us to try to start where they ended. One needs a foundation in order to build a house that lasts. Let's also agree that democracy cannot be made to order. We cannot manufacture democracy through constitutional amendments and ballot boxes alone. Democracy is something that you build one brick at a time. In order to have democracy you need a foundation, time, and skilful builders. Democracy is an accumulative process. Like a tree, democracy needs time to get its roots deep into the soil. Allegories aside, the people have to make the laws and protect them. The people and the government need to protect democracy, for only democracy can protect them both. In the recent battle over constitutional amendments everyone focussed on ballot boxes and how to guard them. But no one talked about what really matters, which is the significance of the papers that went into the boxes. No one talked about the real beneficiary of democracy; namely the citizens. Everyone talked about the rivalries involved in presidential and legislative elections. And no one admitted that we have very little to work with. Our parties are a figment of imagination. Our own parties are undemocratic. Look at how they need court orders to decide who's running them. Our parties cannot generate credible competition, nor can they engage in a real contest for power. The aim of the party system is to put a legitimate winner into power. This is not what we have in this country. What we have is a system that can best be described as dictatorship through democracy. We have parties that operate in name only but are unable to perform as parties. They are unable to formulate ideas or methods that qualify them for power, nor can they win the votes of the majority. Let's also agree that freedom of opinion is only one aspect of democracy. Democracy is a system in which public opinion affects policy. You can have a situation where everyone speaks freely but their opinions are systematically ignored, and this is not democracy. This is nothing more than the "cheeping of chicks", as the late Fathi Radwan used to say. What matters is what the citizens can do. Only when empowered can citizens choose the right leaders. The road to political democracy goes through social democracy, as we used to say during Gamal Abdel-Nasser's time. President Nasser was a firm believer in this premise and did the unthinkable to make it happen. Look at how the workers' conditions improved during the period in which this country implemented social democracy. Look at the gains peasants made during the same period. Look at the gains the entire nation made during that period. Now look at what happened afterwards. We had something good going, and we failed to build on it. To introduce a new or amended constitution without changing the lot of the people is like trying to fit a new dress on a disproportionate body. It is like trying to fit a size-40 body into a size 48-suit, or vice versa. This is a vicious circle. We could go on introducing new amendments forever without having one constitution that fits. There are no shortcuts. The long road is the right road, for it is only through the long road that we can lay the foundation for something that lasts. For starters, we need a party system that works. And to have a party system that works, we need to have a public that is politically and socially viable. We cannot expect a poor man to vote well. We cannot expect an impoverished person who is thinking of selling his kidney to think twice before selling his vote. We have to ask ourselves: For whose benefit is democracy? Is democracy something we develop for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful alone? Or is it something for the entire nation, rich and poor? Democracy cannot be achieved unless all classes benefit from it. Only then we could have a constitution that works. The primary task is not putting the right constitution in place, but putting the nation first. The nation should be the true beneficiary of the democratic system. Only then would the nation be able to defend democracy. A capable nation would be able to choose suitable leaders, write a good constitution, and put the right people in government office. We cannot have democracy without a rotation of power. And we cannot have the same party, presidential, and labour leaders in office forever. We need creative and ambitious programmes, and only democracy can bring these about. We need good governance and well-thought-out plans. And we need to be able to respect the opposition. This is the only way forward. This is the first step in the 1,000-mile journey. Democracy is a major turning point, not a gimmick. We have to mean it to make it work. Instead of playing games with each other, we should start playing together as a team. Britain doesn't have a written constitution, but it has a democratic system, strong parties, rotation of power, and freedom of expression. No one, not even the royal family, is allowed to breach the rules. Israel doesn't have a written constitution, but you may have noticed that elections are contested there without breaches of law. The Knesset is elected in a regular fashion; the prime minister comes to office in a regular fashion; and politics is conducted in a regular fashion. You may have also noticed that Israel's civilian authorities often form civilian committees to look into national issues related to war and peace. Following the 1973 War, the Israeli government formed a civilian committee under Judge Agranat to investigate the behaviour of the armed forces during the first hours of battle. More recently, the Olmert government formed the Winograd Commission to examine the reasons for the defeat of the Israeli army in Lebanon last summer. The commission concluded that the war was mismanaged and accused the government -- the same that formed it -- of fighting an unnecessary war in a misguided manner. Where do we stand on all that? Are we at the beginning of the road, as some say? Or at the end of the road, as others say? Or perhaps we haven't even taken the first step? One last remark: even after the constitution was amended, only 31 per cent of the voters showed up for the mid-term Shura Council elections. Is that progress? * The writer is former defence minister and chief of General Intelligence.
