Reacting to the French people’s “non” to the European Union, President Jacques Chirac said, “I heard you.”
There is no dearth of explanations for the French people’s hostile stand. What is most striking about the president’s reaction, however, is his willingness to listen to the people’s verdict.
Now let us turn to the Arab world where elections were held recently in Lebanon and Egypt. In Egypt it was a referendum on the nature of elections. Both the Arab countries are, seemingly, reluctant to submit to the wishes of their people.
The election in Beirut has disappointed all pro-democratic people because the voter turnout was abysmally low, less than 20 percent in fact. Out of a total of 19 candidates, nine were declared elected unopposed.
In Egypt a large section of the population protested against the referendum because they were not given the opportunity to make their voices heard and their peaceful protests were also suppressed. The media was not allowed to take photos of the protesters. People were angry at the suppression of opinion.
These developments make one wonder whether democracy means just casting votes or listening to public opinion and changing government policy if the majority is not in favor of it.
In Lebanon politicians are apparently heading for a crisis reminiscent of the circumstances that sparked the last civil war. In the late sixties Palestinian groups exercised their authority inside Lebanon so much that the government’s role was reduced to a minimum. The external groups held sway in the country with the help of certain Lebanese groups. At that time, the Phalangists under Jamael were on good terms with the Palestinian national movement, though worried about the declining influence of the government in Lebanon. The Phalangist party gradually grew in power and popularity with a large number of Christians rallying to it. The rest of the story, including civil war, Israeli occupation and bloodbaths, is common knowledge.
The indications are that the bloody days of clashes are returning. The stage is set. The actors and their roles are different. A minority wishes that Lebanon maintained all the features and privileges of a sovereign state with a single army while some others shyly suggest a solution that may mean some powerful groups and their armies operating in the country but outside the government’s control. The Hezbollah is obviously set to take the role played by the Palestinian forces in the past.
The Lebanese have failed to present a reasonable plan for safeguarding their country’s integrity. They could not reach a united stand because of some people’s political ambitions combined with sentiments left behind by the civil war and Israeli, international and then Arab, and lastly Syrian, interventions.
The bone of contention now is the stand of the armed Hezbollah. It is argued that this Lebanese party cannot be viewed as the Palestinian organization was in past. No other political party in the country keeps an armed wing. The other parties are not willing to tolerate a party that has an armed wing, no matter what the justifications.
The priorities after the elections should be listed, with the abolition of the armed militias coming first followed by the power-sharing arrangement. Care should be taken not to divert the attention from core issues such as the squandering of the nation’s wealth, foreign forces playing havoc with the country’s security and interfering in its internal matters or the issue of the republic’s president. The major issues also include the need for a centralized military force and its monopoly of weapons and the equal nationality rights for all citizens. Without fulfilling these basic requirements, the Lebanese public will only cry aloud with no one to listen.
The situation in Egypt is not as simple as it may seem. The Egyptian people are voicing their demand for change though their cries go unheeded. The cries of a people are stifled by an authoritarian regime while the people in a total democracy do not need to shout in order to be heard. On the other hand, in Egypt where democracy is neither total nor totally absent, there are marginal areas where people may make loud protests, which no one in power listens to.
Egyptians have a special knack for expressing their views in jokes. The late President Gamal Abdul Nasser reportedly listened to jokes every day in order to gauge the mood of the public. It is also reported that the legendary singer Umm Kulthum sung to the late president the famous song Al-Etlal. “Give me my freedom and let my hands be free / That which has been given to me has been lost / Ah my wrists bleed with your chains.” The president did not understand what the singer really meant. According to the memoirs of Mustafa Amin, Umm Kulthum was in fact singing about him.
Now the mood of the Egyptian public and their problems are clearly expressed in opposition newspapers, on the Internet and on satellite channels — though no real redress for the problems has been forthcoming. The country suffers from various economic and political woes.
The old antidotes are no longer useful. The healing process can begin only when the authorities listen patiently to the problems and react accordingly. But the authorities fail because they follow outdated prescriptions. It is no secret that the United States believes that positive changes in the Middle East could be either expedited or obstructed by Egypt.
That is true. Any progressive change in Egypt would signal positive changes all over the region.
