IF it is true that democracy is the greatest achievement of the human race since the march of civilisation began, it is equally true that one of the wellsprings of democracy is pluralism. When people came to realise that diversity of creeds, opinions, viewpoints and tastes was one of the most important features of humanity, it was natural for political systems to incorporate and respect different trends without allowing any one of them, even if it enjoyed a strong or even absolute majority, to deprive the others from the right to differ with the majority's view, and to believe in other programmes, ideas, systems and theories. Indeed, as the march of civilisation progressed, the realisation that pluralism was a basic feature of humanity evolved into a conviction that pluralism was a source for the enrichment of human life, as it expanded the horizons of creativity, innovation and renewal. Although most members of the community of nations subscribe to the notion of pluralism as a basic component of their political systems, below the surface is a different reality in which the vast majority of people remain at a very primitive stage when it comes to really embracing this notion, and fully understanding and appreciating its meaning and benefits. This is as true of the most advanced societies (led by the United States) as it is of the less developed societies, including those of the Third World. There is mistrust and a mutual lack of understanding between the different civilisations, which renders the benefits and potential advantages of pluralism far fewer than they might otherwise have been. Some see the way out of this dilemma as the “standardisation" of the world, i.e. the replacement of diversity by a uniform model of civilisation. Not only is this an unattainable goal, it is also the direct antithesis of the notion of pluralism. Moreover, any attempt to impose a universal norm would lay the ground for the spread of conflicts and clashes between civilisations, to the detriment of humanity as a whole. Evidence of the vast legacy of mutual misunderstanding, mistrust and misconceptions between civilisations can be found in the Western civilisation's view of most Eastern civilisations, which is often based on fanciful notions totally divorced from reality. It can also be found in the often distorted perceptions that ancient civilisations have of the West, which tend to focus on the negative aspects of Western civilisation, while disregarding its positive aspects, even those which have benefited the whole of humanity. In recent years, the traditional mistrust between Orient and Occident was given new impetus with the emergence of a school of thought in the West in general and in the United States in particular, which believes that future relations between civilisations will be marked by clashes and conflicts, particularly the relationship between the West and Islam. The literature put out by this school of thought reveals a startling lack of understanding. Samuel P. Huntington's seminal book The Clash of Civilisations and other similar works by authors such as Paul Kennedy and Francis Fukuyama, are closer to journalistic articles than they are to scholarly works based on a sound knowledge of the subject matter. In fact, Huntington's book is an expanded version of an article he wrote originally for the American quarterly Foreign Affairs. Moreover, the authors of these works lack the vision that would enable them to see a mechanism which could replace the scenario of inter-civilisation clashes with a scenario of dialogue between civilisations. That is not to say that the scenario of a clash of civilisations can be altogether excluded, but only that dialogue is possible if the vision exists and if serious efforts are made to transform it into reality. Contemporary political discourse is peppered with references to democracy, human rights, general freedoms and pluralism. But raising these slogans is one thing, applying them is another. While nobody denies that these are noble values representing the highest stage, yet in the march of civilisation, the fact is that the way they are translated into reality leaves much to be desired. This is particularly true of the value of pluralism. For example, the West raises the banner of pluralism with one hand, while some of its citizens raise the banner of standardisation with the other. This confusion leaves a bewildered world convinced that humanity has a long way to go before it can claim to have genuinely adopted these values. If pluralism means that a diversity of trends, creeds, cultures, tastes, opinions and lifestyles is a basic feature of human life and a source of its enrichment, it follows that we should strive for "unity through diversity". This entails expanding a culture of respecting "Otherness", provided that this applies to all parties simultaneously and on a basis of parity. Respecting "Otherness" is in direct contradiction with the idea of standardising the world. Fortunately, this idea is not advocated by the West as a whole, and has not been taken up by Western Europe. It is an exclusively American notion based on nothing but America's cultural poverty. Heggy is the 2008 winner of Italy's top prize for literature “Grinzane Cavour.” http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_Heggy http://www.tarek-heggy.com
