[Mb-civic] FW: Democracy within autocracy

[Golsorkhi]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Samii Shahla <shahla at thesamiis.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:12:20 -0400
Subject: Democracy within autocracy

Democracy within autocracy

by Mahin Bahrami

  People in the Middle East still gravitate towards individuals  who
most resemble a Supreme Being, who is compassionate, merciful,
generous and wise

April 11, 2005
iranian.com

  ³In the name of the Compassionate and Merciful  God². NOT ³In the name
of the Democratic and Freedom  Loving God²? Could this be considered as
a hint towards what  most of the people in the Middle East deeply and
truly value, at  least for now? Perhaps if we listened carefully to
what is blared  out of the mosques¹ speakers, day in day out, we would
find  out what the majority holds as value.

  With a dash of objectivity and impartiality, it not difficult  to
conclude that compassion, generosity and wisdom sell big time  in the
Middle East. Democracy doesn¹t. Contrary to common  belief, most people
in the Middle East don¹t even know what  democracy is and don¹t care
for it.

  Democracy is probably the most overused word in the past century.
Like other words that lose their meaning in our minds when repeated
over and over it has almost become a meaningless utterance. It used to
have a noble ring to it but now it sounds more like a cliché,  almost
an imposition. Perhaps if we stop harping about it blindly,  step back
and contemplate on it for a moment we would see it for  what it is and
perhaps use it more sensibly. Democracy is a tool  which if not used
properly can be detrimental to the growth of  the subjected group. Too
many times a model fit for one society  is wrongfully forced to fit
another with unpredictable and grave  results.

  Webster¹s dictionary defines Œdemocracy¹ as: ³government  by the
people, usually through elected representatives².  However, this
definition is based on the people¹s understanding  that they are equal,
i.e. egalitarianism. The individuals forming  the people must have
reached a level of self-assertion and self-confidence  whereby equality
of each member of the group is internalized. Self  esteem and respect
for others¹ views are the necessary premise  for democracy. For a
traditional society accustomed to a single  ruler dominating a
majority, these concepts are foreign and even  if imposed the
transition to a democratic society will take generations  to complete
itself.

  Democracy is not a simple action. It is a process. It is a state  of
mind that takes years to develop. Presuming that by a simple  act of
marking an X on a ballot sheet the people have arrived at  a democracy
is only a foolish assumption. Let¹s take a look  at what has worked and
what hasn¹t so far and why.

  Most people will agree that the most stable countries in the  region
are those on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf and  the Sea of
Oman and furthermore that the most successful government  in this
particular region is the type that is exercised in the  United Arab
Emirates. It works because it understands the people  and it works FOR
the people and not the other way around.

  Many Western critics argue that it the UAE has a great system  of
government but it is not a democracy. But why does it have to  be? It
is working because it fits. Democracy is not for everyone,  everywhere
at anytime. What is necessary is to understand the people  that are to
be governed and to support a system that works FOR  those particular
people according to their beliefs, culture and  heritage.

  In my uncertified opinion, people in the Middle East still gravitate
towards individuals as opposed to systems. They tend to search  for and
support those who most resemble a Supreme Being, who is compassionate,
merciful, generous and wise. The concept of an abstract  system based
on collaborative group thought and responsibility  is still foreign to
most.

  Examples of such holy individuals are Ayatollah Sistani of Iraq  and
the late Sheikh Zayed of the UAE. What Sistani was able to  achieve in
regards to quelling the Al Sadr uprising, no democratically  elected
body of representatives in Iraq could ever do. Until his  death in
2004, Sheikh Zayed was the most respected living individual  in his
country. Same applies to the late Rafiq Hariri. These individuals  did
not represent democracy instead they applied their personal  wisdom,
generosity and compassion towards the betterment of the  lives of the
people they represent. People of the Middle East do  not respect
abstract systems instead they respect individuals with  a proven and
visible sense of compassion and wisdom.

  Within some of the Gulf countries  an environment is created whereby
under the umbrella of an autocratic  and non democratic government,
pockets of democracy in the form  of corporations and small businesses
are created. Within that small  pocket, individuals learn to exercise
democratic thinking and acting.  The board room becomes a mini
parliament with the directors as  parliamentarians discussing every
aspect of the company and taking  action in a democratic way.

  All this is happening in a healthy and stable yet autocratically  run
country. The key here is stability of the government and not  so much
the type of the government. In this way, small democratic microcosms in
the form of universities, corporations and various private institutions
are created within an autocratic yet stable macrocosm. Individuals
learn and exercise the democratic way of thinking and operating on a
continuous basis, as opposed to just once every four years during
elections.

  There is an interesting and ironic common occurrence. Because  of the
nature of the Middle East, most of the local residents outside  of the
Gulf countries have, at one time during their lifetime, experienced
violence on the streets or even outright war. The beauty  of the Gulf
phenomenon is that it has created an environment where  it is not
unusual for direct adversaries finding themselves as colleagues,
classmates or even friends, unwittingly. In effect,  all political
differences are set aside and only personal achievement  and success
are promoted in a co-operative and democratic way under  an autocratic
umbrella.

  The reverse is true in the case of other countries in the Middle
East. Under the auspice of a so called ³democratic² government,
pockets of dictatorships are created. Because the people who are  being
governed and those who are governing ³democratically² are  not trained
to operate a democratic environment the system corrupts  and leads to
pockets of small dictatorships visible within corporations, government
departments and educational institutions.

  There may be signs of democracy  in the form of elections, parliaments
and even political debates.  However, because there is no real
stability in the system, financially  nor politically, individuals
resort to dictatorship in their immediate proximity in order to insure
a future for themselves and their  families. As a result one finds a
high rate of nepotism and autocratic  management in many businesses
within technically ³democratic² countries  in the region.

  Reality is not what it seems or what we want it to be. There  are
people who are happy to be ruled only if the ruler is just,  at least
until they reach a point where they want to rule themselves.  And only
then a civilized ruler would accommodate a civilized transition.

---

http://www.iranian.com/MBahrami/2005/April/Democracy/index.html

------ End of Forwarded Message