The recent turmoil and development of the events in Egypt
added to various other situations evolving around the world raise the serious
question as to what the notion of democracy actually means in the twenty first
century.
At the beginning it was always advocated that as civilized
society, there was no longer a place for other nations whether developed or not
to interfere with the internal affairs of other nations unless the conduct of
those affairs threatens another country’s peace and or stability. It is
apparently still the case as regularly advocated by leaders of countries such
as the US, the UK and France. In their rhetoric they constantly argue that
people of all countries have the right to decide what is better for them and
that only the strict respect of the people’s voice by those in power amounts to
democracy. Anything else will fail.
Building from those rhetoric we have observed the US and many
of its European allies intervene in Country such as Iraq in order to « kick out
the dictators and put in place the democratic process ». But for the stubborn
resilience of others such as Robert Mugabe their country would have witnessed
the same scenario. Or maybe those countries have escaped the strict wrath of
the gendarmes thanks to their poverty in oil and other natural resources.
Not long ago in Egypt it was all joy when Mubarak was toppled
from power by the Egyptian people. The entire world seems to welcome the fact
that finally in Egypt a civilian government will be put in place and everybody
was excited that a progressive democracy will now emerge from the ashes of the
revolution. As expected the people that toppled the dictator from power went
through a difficult transition and ultimately expressed their wish by voting
for a government of civilians. There was a serious contest involving several
parties and whether we like it or not the Muslim brothers won without vote
rigging. Perhaps the western countries expected that the vision of that party
would change once in power; but No it did not. The Egyptian people were well
aware of their views and proposed policies if elected; and they chose them
nevertheless. The party was legitimately sworn in and has since worked in
accordance with what their officials promised to do before their election.
This is what I think is democracy. It does not in my opinion
matter whether the Muslim brothers’ victory was marginal only. We have seen the
same situation in Britain where the Tory did not actually win the general
elections in 2010 when they could only gather 36.1% of the votes. This suggests
that the vast majority of the people of England did not approve of the
Conservative ruling the country! Yet the whole world accepts that Britain is a
model of democracy and Cameron can govern without anybody questioning his
legitimacy. Yet in Egypt western countries having noted that the Muslim
brothers were not necessarily serving the interest of the West modified the
permanent view according to which the capture of power from an elected
government through force amount to a coup to instead qualify the military
actions in Cairo as implementing the expression of the people’s wish (ie
democracy). It is striking to note that “President Obama (nor any western
leader) still hasn't declared the military takeover a coup and has not stopped
the $1.5 billion military aid several conclusions are clear”. It is amazing how they can be amnesic quickly
forgetting that not long ago Palestinians expressed their wish to be ruled by
Hamas. Their choice was blatantly rejected and ignored by the western countries
under Israel’s pressure. That did not concern the teachers of democracy. The
substantial question in my mind is therefore this: if people have the right to
make their own choices, to self determine their destiny, why should Britain, France,
the US or indeed any other country as they usually do, interfere with those
choices? In scrutinizing the above described couple of positions and bearing in
mind many others not mentioned here it clearly appears to me that the notion of
democracy is a myth.
From the moment we accept that the notion of democracy is a
myth I am bound to suggest that people are entitled to live by their own
culture and customs. We may not like it but we must accept it and get over the
fact that cultures and customs are different from one region to another. What
is classified as degrading in one society may not necessarily be so in another
and it is up to the people of that society to decide what is good for them not
for the western countries to dictate their way of life to the whole world.
Macky Sall the Senegalese president firmly and subtly
inferred that to Mr Obama during his recent trip to the Country. The American
president sought to have the African governments to fight more against
discriminations by making same sex relationship legal and to do more for the
negative view surrounding this issue to be shifted. Mr Sall politely and firmly
reminded him that African were champions when it came to the implementation of
human rights. He referred to the first human right which is the right to life
and pointed out to Mr Obama that America was still breaching that holy right by
condemning to death and executing people daily. This is he said was far worse
than criminalizing homosexually before concluding that Senegal was “not ready to
decriminalize homosexuality”. Even though I do not necessarily agree with that
stance, I believe that this was Macky Sall’s way of reminding the world that
the gay rights issue is cultural and each people should be left to determine in
accordance with its customs and moral values whether or not to turn in one
direction. We have consistently told people who objected to same sex
relationship in Europe to get over the fact that some people are gays and
rightly so. The question now is whether the western governments have also
considered whether their stance on other issues would constitute a breach of
some people’s right to determine what way of life is suitable to them.
For
instance, the vast majority of countries around the world strongly approves of
polygamy and practices it day in day out. Yet in countries such as Britain,
France and the US these practices are qualified as criminal and rejected
probably on moral grounds. Those western countries have failed to actively encourage
their people to get over the fact that some people are polygamous. This is
probably because it is not in the western culture and customs to legally have
several spouses. In fact just as same sex relationships is a criminal offence
in many African country, polygamy is a criminal offence in Britain, France, the
US and in many other countries. Why should it be okay for one group of
countries to impose their cultural and customs practice on others whilst
rejecting their own practices? Is that the continuity of what Kipling called
the western’s civilization mission?
I believe that the world should be united in fighting
discriminations of all kind. I also believe that each people has the right to
decide and implement a way of life without the others’ whether rich or poor
interference. I am not naïve and I am aware that this is a dream that will
never materialize as it is a very human nature that the powerful dominate the
less powerful and exploit them. This is at the end of the day what make them
powerful rather than weak. If the less powerful become powerful they will lose
their influence, their ability to exploit the richness of that less powerful
country and many more. This is just a way of shading a different light on what
is going on around us now and to provoke a thinking process about what is right
and what is wrong. What is democracy in fact? Is it the submission of the
people of less powerful countries to the wishes of the people of the so called
powerful countries? The current Egyptian situation and the current rhetoric
about other issues stemming from the cultural view of various societies may
provide clues as to the answer to this anodyne but profound question.
Claude-Bernard Tene
