"Transition to Freedom"? Egypt and Democracy

The mass uprising in Egypt has focused the world’s attention on the discontent within many Arab socieities. In a frenzy of political and media commentary on the growing wave of protests and mass insurrections, one of the buzzwords has been “democracy”: the Egyptian people want it, “Western” commentators want it; even the Egyptian generals seem to want it.  Yet even as Egypt is declared as being in a “transition to democracy”, the continuing conflict between the protestors and the ruling order highlights an essential ambiguity over the concept itself.*

For ruling elites (political, economic and media) in the Western world, “democracy” is a tamed word: it is generally taken to mean a liberal-constitutional political system[1], with multiple parties, political/civil rights, and “free and fair elections”, embedded within a capitalist economic system. While clearly preferable to an openly authoritarian system, this “democracy” is elitist and hierarchical: ordinary people are implicitly regarded as being unable to govern themselves, and their participation in any substantive areas of decision-making, particularly economic matters, is held to be undesirable and dangerous. The people are able to periodically choose between different elites for who governs the system, although these elites themselves generally share a consensus as how to best to run public affairs. This is seen by elites as the best way to ensure efficient and “responsible” governance, and acts as an effective mechanism of mediating power among the ruling class. Importantly, this type of political system depends on a largely passive population, whose participation in the political system is restricted to voting once every four or five years for various wings of the ruling order. Mass mobilisation of the people independently of “responsible” political actors, and attempts to influence decision-making and public affairs in general, is seen as a “threat” or “abuse” of “democracy” and in serious crises may even necessitate the temporary or permanent suspension of democratic rights.

For ordinary people democracy often has a deeper and wider meaning than that of their rulers, one that is much more in line with the theory of what democracy is actually about. The core principles of democracy are political equality and popular control: [2] everyone within an organisation (whether a small group or the whole of society) should have an equal voice in decisions of that organisation, and the collectivity as a whole should have control of the functioning of that organisation, not an elite or privileged group within it. At the societal level, the implications of this can be revolutionary: what kind of society do we need for there to be any meaningful equality among us and popular control over decision-making? Clearly, the institutions and practices of liberal “democracy” are not sufficient, as a quick observation of the British political system makes clear: a monarchy with un-democratic Crown powers, an unelected House of Lords, mainstream political parties with little choice between them, an un-democratic electoral system (First-Past-the-Post), economic decision-making largely beyond the realms of public debate [3], the dominance of corporate-owned media, increasing police surveillance, widening inequalities and increasing poverty in society, and a lack of independent organisation within the working/popular classes.

In arguing for greater equality and for popular control over decision-making, this is where the struggle for genuine democracy is linked to the struggle for socialism. A radical move towards democracy means breaking the monopoly ruling elites have over governing our affairs: instead of parliament, why not have an assembly elected by proportional representation, with all delegates directly mandated and subject to recall? Why not introduce a mechanism for society-wide referenda on important issues, including war and peace? Why not widen the scope of democratic decision-making, and have popular control over how the economy is run, with the direct participation of workers, and key resources being commonly owned for the benefit of all? Why not include social and economic rights as key elements of democracy along with political and civil, guaranteeing housing, heating, transport and political, cultural and social participation and inclusion? Why not break the corporate monopoly over information, supporting grassroots community media and online forms of citizen journalism? Such changes toward both genuine democracy and socialism require an organised population: independent and democratic trade unions, organised communities, students, and others: it is something to be won, not something which will be given freely. Ultimately, in a society where a “democratic” shell masks the reality that ruling elites run our affairs in their interests, struggling to gain the collective control to shape our society means challenging the system upon which their power is based, and overcoming the exploitation and oppression of capitalism.

This is the conflict of interest being exposed within Egypt. While Obama, Cameron, and the Egyptian generals talk of a “transition” to a “democratic Egypt”, they work and hope to see the Egyptian population de-mobilised and returned to their former passivity, while also trying to isolate the issue of political reform from socio-economic demands[4]. Elections, yes, they can be allowed. However, genuine political equality and popular control cannot. That is why Tahrir Square has now been cleared, and why the generals are telling the workers to stop striking and go home[5]. Their version of democracy requires “stability”. A truly democratic Egypt would threaten “Western” interests, including control over Gulf oil [5] and Egypto-Israeli relations, and would threaten the political and economic power of the Egyptian ruling class. Genuine democracy requires a growing revolutionary f6rvour and the widespread belief among the Egyptian population that they have the collective power to influence the development of society and take control over their own lives, a sentiment encouraged by the victory against Mubarak. As David McNally has observed, “the genie of the Egyptian workers having now been awakened, it will be very hard to put it back in the bottle.” [7] That growing confidence in the power and popular capacity of the population, tied to the struggle for genuine and substantive democracy, is becoming a grave concern to both Western elites and ruling classes across the Arab world, and a source of hope and inspiration for the rest of us.

Notes

*This was originally published on my blog.

[1] Raby, D. 2006. Ch.2: Democracy, Formal or Substantive: When Liberalism Becomes Counter Revolutionary, in Democracy and Revolution, Latin America and Socialism Today. London: Pluto Press

[2] Beetham, D. 1999. Ch. 1, Defining and Justifying Democracy, in Democracy and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity Press

[3] This trend has been seen in relation to spending cuts, where the question of whether spending cuts are actually necessary, or are avoidable through using a different policy approach, has been largely absent from public debate.

[4] Hanieh, A. (14/2/11) ’Conclusion’, in Egypt’s Uprising: Not Just a Question of ‘Transition’, Socialist Project, E-Bulletin No. 462

[5] The Guardian, (14/2/11), ‘Egypt’s Army Calls for an End to Strikes, as Egypt’s Workers Grow in Confidence’

[6] Ahmed, S. (21/2/11). Dead Hope: The Capitalist West Cannot Afford a Free Middle East. Socialist Project, E-Bulletin No. 461

[7] McNally, D. (11/2/11). Mubarack’s Folly: The Rising of Egypt’s Workers. David McNally.org