The heavy burden of democracy: Where is salvation? Democracy between perspective and prohibited

Introduction

Over the past three decades, following the end of the Cold War era, the world has witnessed a setback towards democracy. This is especially as a number of countries have embarked on a democratic transition after living under totalitarian and authoritarian regimes for many years, and such development was not such a world free of problems, obstacles and challenges. This was not only in the new democracies but also in countries with long-established democracies, particularly in light of the racist and chauvinistic super-wave, which elevated ‘populism’.

Perhaps this has brought back central questions about democracy and its future in the current crisis ¹ : Is liberal representative democracy the only option for regulating governance? Is it the magic key to good government for development and justice? How can we reconcile the populist trend with democracy in the West and keep some civil rights and freedoms?

Just as it has generated a growing sense of dislocation among large segments of the population because of the deterioration of the living conditions, is it only elections that determine the legitimacy of governance and democracy of the system? Or are there other elements, such as the degree of representation, partnership, participation, equality and observance of democratic values and meeting the needs of the public, primarily a decent life, in addition to the existence of democratic institutions, control, accountability, independent and impartial judiciary, as well as other requirements of an honest democracy?

The many difficulties and obstacles that hindered the old and new democratic path are due to the development of the constitutional and legal fields, rights and freedoms, in addition to scientific, technological, social, economic and cultural development, including the revolution of communications and transportation, information technology and the ‘digital boom’. This in turn raised problematic questions: Is democracy, by virtue of their dynamics, able to respond to the changing realities, and whether it can renew itself and overcome some of its issues to invent new methods and literature?

If the experience of nearly three centuries has confirmed anything, it is the possibility of democracy to keep pace with development and harmony, with the spirit of the times; it is because it wants to be more representative. The issue today is the ability to represent people and express their aspirations, especially to meet their basic needs and vital demands.

I Democracy indicators

The challenges facing democracy today have led to divisions, displacements and occasional blockages, and some applications have reached a real dilemma, according to the British magazine The Economist’s report, which indicates that its indicators have declined globally since 2016. ²

Despite the lack of agreed indicators on democracy, like terrorism, development and others, because of the absence of the definition of sententious it is due to a conflict of interest and essentially counteract ideologies and struggle, but there is no evidence for them,

General Constitutionalism:

The people are the source of power

It can be said that democracy is a series of experiences that evolve and change, decline and advance, according to the degree of social development, which needs to be constantly criticized from its intellectual, philosophical, situational, legal and administrative transparency through monitoring, as well as monitoring and accountability, especially the extent to which they are adapted to the needs of society and constantly changing circumstances.

The ideological struggle between socialism and capitalism was based in part on each other’s claim to its monopoly on democracy, or its bias to their own ‘democracy’ against ‘democracy of the other’. Capitalism claims that democracy is a product of its own, whereas Marxism tries to prove its democracy by claiming to represent the ‘majority’ against the ‘minority’, but all the claims of ‘ideology’ did not succeed, and when nationalist ideologies have failed and the various branches and Marxism, the line of retreat was only towards democracy, whose devotion became a sign of ‘piety’ as an ‘alternative ideology’, after being cursed day and night, or it was being manipulated in a specific ideological direction, and some are talking about it as a ‘stage of salvation’, according to George Tarabichi, to open the cave of closed modernity and to achieve a miraculous shift, without effort or cost and time from the reality of lateness to the example of progress. ⁴

Tarabichi makes a distinction between ‘the issues of democracy and its problems’ but acknowledges that democracy is the most pressing issue at present, especially since many of the warring parties raise it as a slogan and everyone wants to play at their own pace and according to his point of view, his position and arguably his interests, considering his aim to achieve salvation from a suffocating and autocratic political reality, to the extent that it is a lifeline, it is a scarecrow in the face of totalitarian regimes, and thus it is employed by ‘ideology’, for each one’s interests and competes with his opponents. ⁵ Everyone claims it, but the democracy doesn’t acknowledge them. ⁶

Is democracy really a way out of all crises and a magical solution to all problems or is it merely a system and institution in the mechanism of good governance, an area of choice in the face of authoritarian and superior forms of undemocratic modes of governance? Democracy has its flaws and shortcomings, because it may not lead to the right choice of governors, and there are many factors that affect the governors to choose the governing staff. ⁷

As far as the fact that the democratic system in which the people choose their representatives to express their will, it has also provided a failed model of what mankind has paid dearly, an example of this is the Nazi German regime in the era of Hitler, who came to power through elections and the choice of the people, like many of the forces that democracy brought to leadership platforms, but practically disguised them and pursued an undemocratic approach in its relationship with the other, which needs to think about the fate of democracies themselves in the light of populist waves that have spread in the West, as it had some presence in the Arab and Islamic world, and the issue is related to democratic values, legitimacy, the degree of representation and expression of people’s rights and freedoms, in addition to equality, justice, equal opportunities, participation and respect for human rights.

There have been attempts, as we have pointed out, to impose democracy as an ideological charge, as a ‘promise’, but such a promise needs to be demonstrated with the question, it is not enough, do these missionary and the inevitable certainties promoted by ideologies have reached a dead end? If the goals are far and unforeseen, the methods and means used to reach them have not been sound. How can fair and noble goals be achieved by means that are sometimes unjust and inhumane? How is democracy to be presented as a promise or a new ‘ideological’ lifeline after old promises clash with the rock of reality?

These attempts forget the true essence of democracy as a tool of governance and a mechanism for organizing political life and achieving state administration in its relationship with society and the individual in a framework that helps raise the ceiling of freedoms, equality, participation and justice, and this requires emptying them of their ideological content, which, like other ideologies and their applications, will be arbitrary.

II Populism

Democracy was as bright as it was at the end of the 1980s and early 2000s, the current global landscape is getting darker, and the intellectual and active dynamism of the democratic system has receded, especially the world witnessed a severe economic and financial crisis in late 2007 and its effects continuing to the present, leaving the retreat into question about:

the principle of the rule of law;

The explosion of ‘identities’, especially after the collapse of totalitarian regimes in the late 1980s, gave rise to a new sphere of conflict, which affected democratization, and in particular a sense of what threatens it, whether the threat is real or hypothetical, which has led to demagogic tendencies towards populism and superiority of the other in societies that have known pluralism, and generated reactions in other societies, such as ours, which has suffered from external bullying and internal tyranny.

Thus, the electoral weight of right-wing forces grew, even on the far right and some on the far left in a number of European countries, notwithstanding the difficult circumstances of the centrist elites that ruled for a short period, as the terrorist trend of ‘Islamist’ movements grew in many developing countries, especially in the Arab world, from which emerged Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State (Daesh), Front Victory (Front Ahrar al-Sham) and others.

‘Populism’ attempted to play the melody of xenophobia in light of the wave of asylum and immigration that led to the curtailment of certain freedoms and citizenship rights, in conjunction with the effects of economic and trade globalization; it quickly called for the application of a protectionist policy, and led such a trend in Britain to disengage from the European Union (Brexit), just as it led to the right-wing electoral success was the climax Donald Trump’s victory in the United States, which called scenes of fear of the other and hatred against the other, and all manifestations of intolerance and extremism, not to mention the policy of ignorance with regard to foreigners, immigration, terrorism and Islam, as well as protectionist economic policy, which harmonized with some feelings among large segments of the population, especially low-income people, particularly his speech, which was accompanied by the defence of American values and ‘culture’, a speech that some authoritarian governments correspond to with external danger, preserving sovereignty, protecting security, countering terrorism and refugee flows, this is in fact a violation of human rights that brings dignity to security.

China, Russia and many third world countries were not interested in democracy. China abolished the restrictions on presidential terms and paved the way for Xi Jinping to remain in office indefinitely, and President Putin has replaced his positions to extend his administration of the country to gain power for himself.

‘Populism’ in this sense is not an emotional reaction and an electoral upheaval against a crisis situation, although it exploits it, but it is a real threat to liberal democracy, especially by its tendency to provide explanations for the concept of the people in an attempt to deny diversity and multiculturalism, and to give it a kind of homogeneity, which means a form of imposed unity, which is close to coercion.

The Berlin Wall fell on 9 November 1989. As a result, new democracies emerged, and the world went through an important transition, from Eastern Europe to South Africa, from Southeast Asia to Latin America. In South Africa, the apartheid regime fell, the first elections were held in 1994, and a range of democratic reforms began in China, as well as many Eastern European and Latin American countries made a change and moved towards democracy.

But this scene faced many challenges from authoritarian regimes and religious regimes, and the biggest challenge was populism. In France, the rise of the French National Front headed by Marin Le Pen was an indication of this. In Italy, the 5-Star Movement emerged, and in Germany the radical Alternative for Germany, as populism spread in Europe, reaching the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland and others.

Furthermore, if that was what the map of democracy in the West suffered, in the Arab region it was even worse under the rough terrain of democracy’s ‘experiments’ which are still limited, unclear and fragile, not more than a trend in many countries. In many countries, democracy faced major challenges:

civil wars;

There was scarcity of democratic culture, especially in light of the social disparities in income and the inequitable distribution of wealth, in addition to the spread of illiteracy and the spread of ignorance and pre-state curbs, such as tribalism and regionalism, and others.

The talk of democracy has become more like an intellectual luxury in harsh living conditions, not to mention national and regional conditions, attempts to entail, the influence of traditional forces, conservatism and counter-revolution. Unfortunately, too often we blame external powers, such as the United States and the European Union, for not committing themselves to supporting emerging democracies or supporting democratic transformation, and sometimes to the influence and interference of undemocratic regional powers, especially authoritarian regimes.

Notwithstanding the objectivity of the reference to the political duality and selectivity of international forces and the interference of regional powers, as well as the continuation of the policy of ‘Israeli aggression’, there are important internal factors that cannot be overlooked, including the lack of democratic culture, the lack of legal awareness and the political and sectarian use, and employment of religion and State. The persistence of anti-democratic forces in advanced positions in the state apparatus, where security and sense plays much more than modern, civil and democratic thinking, in addition to the weakness of civil society and the absence or fragility of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, not to mention several aspects of the militarization experienced by some societies and the continued policies of exclusion, marginalization and the weakness of the national state.

III Beyond democracy

After the late Japanese historian Francis Fukuyama ushered in the End of History, ⁸ he regretted his bet on ‘democratic certainty’ and the ability of democracy to miracles, likely to favour the legal and institutional aspect of nation-building. ‘Liberal democracy’s institution-building efforts have been very modest and if there is one thing that has changed my thinking about all of this, it is precisely this question about the difficulty of creating institutions’, ⁹ he expressed. This means working to adapt democracy to respond to the questions of the times and contribute its mechanisms to solve the problem of political assembly.

Perhaps there is an interdependence between culture and democracy, just as there is an interdependence between democracy and education, especially the recognition of diversity and recognition of pluralism and respect for the opinion of others. When these values are preserved in a peaceful and civil order and through accumulation, it will be difficult to overtake them easily, because raising awareness contributes not only to the creation of legal conditions for public and private rights and freedoms but also to their development, attempting to violate or bypass them will be met with strong resistance from society, which will refuse to back down. Thus, the key to democracy becomes recognition of the other, and it becomes the task of the state to manage the relationship between them in order to manage the right of difference, and of course, it requires an environment that is fertile to plant the seeds of democracy, whose growth is achieved gradually, through accumulation, communication and experience. Even when gains are reversed, a broad spectrum of society will seek to recover them. ¹⁰ On the culture of democracy, Samuel Huntington argues that ‘democratic transition’ goes through complex processes of interaction between economic, social and cultural development and democratic culture. ¹¹

There is no doubt that democratic culture is very important for the establishment of a solid democratic system, and as important as institutions, the need for democratic culture is no less important for the success of the experience that contributes to the creation and maintenance of legal conditions for personal and public freedoms and the basis of this is the recognition of diversity, pluralism and recognition of the other, and especially the relationship within the framework of managing diversity, and that is the first step that is indispensable to democracy. This can accumulate and influence the framework to develop in a positive environment. ¹²

A democratic culture needs a rich soil and a natural environment related to the environment of society and the degree of its development and history. A democratic culture means moderation, harmony, cooperation, negotiation, non-exclusion, cancellation or marginalization, but the protection of the rights of all ‘majorities’ and ‘minorities’, in addition to ensuring people’s beliefs, choices, differences, identities and right to expression of their own opinions and beliefs. In this sense, democracy is a system of systematic conflict between competing interests and aspirations, which can struggle peacefully and legally. ¹³

IV Democracy between expansion and dissipation

After the collapse of the Berlin Wall on 9 November 1989, the fall of socialist regimes, the dissolution of the Soviet Union in late 1991 and totalitarian regimes in general, the world was provided a viable platform for the spread of democratic ideas and directed a number of countries in the way of democratic transformations and the rise of awareness about democracy. However, this idea faced many difficulties, particularly in developing countries, such as in the Arab world, where the winds of change were broken on the shores of the Mediterranean for internal and external reasons, in addition to objective and subjective factors related to the Arab and regional environment in general and in each Arab country individually.

Such transformations have reassessed a detailed and fundamental question: Is democracy free from the flaws and disadvantages of the ‘sacred’? Or are they also in need of criticism and evaluation?

As criticism of democracy grows, mankind will in practice be more in need of it, because its mechanisms are still valid so far to improve the governance of societies and develop the management of countries, irrespective of their shortcomings and gaps. In order to establish just systems of governance in our contemporary societies, we find ourselves more in need to promote and develop democracy, especially by preserving its essence and spirit, not its shape or formality. In the past three decades, there has been hope for the transition to democracy, and the level of optimism for democracy as a sound path to governance and development has raised new obstacles. These need to be present and future thinking about democracy’s prospects and its future, especially in light of a severe populist wave.

The report published by the British magazine The Economist at the end of 2018 stated the worst decline in the indicators of democracy in the world, ¹⁴ which was divided into four groups, namely:

The report, which examined the case of 167 countries, came to the dramatic conclusion that democracy has receded, noting that 89 of them have changed their ranks and democracies, including some Western regimes, according to the criteria on which they were based, as they approached or moved away from the development indicators.

The talk about democracy raises many questions of a theoretical and practical nature, and it comes to it by appealing to the activation of the will of the people and their freedoms and their rights to choose their representatives, free and fair elections and in the framework of equality, emphasizing the rule of law, the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. After that, is it possible to achieve human development and comprehensive sense, or ‘sustainable development’, without democracy and good governance, especially as they are essential levers to achieve this with the commitment to fight corruption in a framework of transparency and accountability?

Therefore, to reverse some of the indicators of democracy, we need to search for new means and mechanisms to strengthen its essence, deepen its content and expand its circle, because the democratic system is by far the best system of government that humanity has created. This requires addressing the imbalances and fractures that accompany its course and its renewal continuously, in accordance with the ever-changing demands of life. Note that the correction of democracy should be done through democratic means. This requires further reflection to devise new methods of representation at the local and municipal levels and to meet the basic needs of the population, material and spiritual.

The report relied on five indicators to measure democracy: multiparty and elections, government performance, political participation, civil liberties and a culture of democracy. The rise of the right and left populist currents, the revival of the extremist and racist right, the weakness of institutional action, the rise of individualism and the recession of the national state. This decline comes in light of the deepening gap in the distribution of wealth among the haves and have-nots, where the ‘1%’ of the world’s population remains with more than 80% of world resources, while the rest of the population is suffering from health and environmental problems from drought and desertification, which requires international cooperation and huge financial allocations, which are still limited.

If The Economist report diagnosed the state of democratic decline of ancient countries, what would it say about the Arab world? Where conflicts, civil wars, the rise of waves of sectarianism and racial strife, the spread of intolerance and extremism, and the spread of the phenomena of violence and terrorism that hit entire countries not far from regional and international interference.

The question arises here: Is there a single democracy or are there different and specific approaches to achieve democracy, taking into account the rules and common participants? What do we call China, which has achieved tremendous development over the past quarter century?

V Democracy and the United Nations

If the United Nations (UN) Charter did not talk about democracy, despite the rise of the democratic wave subsequent to World War II and the defeat of Nazism and fascism, the growing interest on global level has prompted the UN General Assembly to issue its own resolution as an independent declaration and not as part of an international resolution, declaration or agreement, which was obtained by UN Resolution No. 81 (4 December 2000) on democracy, with a set criteria ¹⁵ :

The first criterion – There is not a single universal model of democracy, in other words, there is no specific model for choosing the path of democratic development. All people have their version of democracy, with the general conditions of transition and democratization adopted.

The Arab Revival Project, ¹⁶ which the Centre for Arab Unity Studies spent over two decades to complete, has developed seven indicators of transition to democracy, in accordance with universal standards, taking into account privacy:

first, public freedoms and human rights;

VI Is democracy perfect?

If democracy is a mechanism, and governance is the best system that mankind has created so far, is it a perfect instrument ¹⁷ that can solve all economic, social, political and cultural problems and achieve welfare, justice and progress?

There is some ‘ideological’ perspective of democracy when it is seen as a promise of proof without evidence, similar to the slogans of socialism, unity, religion (i.e. ‘Islam is the solution’) and so on; moreover, these promises were at the forefront of political rhetoric as if they could heal all our chronic diseases and fix all our issues.

Perhaps many democracies, especially emerging ones, face many obstacles, because the end of authoritarian and ‘closed’ systems does not necessarily nor automatically mean entry to the democratic arena. Democracy needs established traditions, long-term and gradual accumulation towards the development of legal rights. Is the democracy of Eastern Europe, which has existed for only three decades, like the democracies of Western Europe, some of which are over two centuries old!?

Eastern Europe’s ‘democracies’ have brought ethnic, religious and sectarian divisions and in some parts even civil war, in addition to unemployment, economic stagnation, a sharp rise in prices and loss of control over national sovereignty, abilities to comply with the entrenched approach of the influential forces in international politics, the World Bank, giant international economic institutions and mechanisms of international action, not to mention it has created a sense of inability to maintain independence. Indeed, some of the gaps in democracy in countries that preceded Eastern Europe in democratization, such as Greece, Portugal, and Spain, have rooted to serious problems that almost led to their collapse, were it not for the European Union to stand by them. This is even more influential in developing countries which have experienced severe divisions, armed conflicts, religious and sectarian conflicts; even pre-state manifestations have appeared in many of them, present in the weakness and fragility of the state, which in many cases has lost control.

But do these problems, breaches and challenges to democracy require them to stay away or turn their backs on them? The road to democracy brings with it a lot of anguish and difficulties, because democracy does not come at once, but gradually, and progressively, everything is relative, of course, to the degree of the participation of freedoms; it is accountable to the devolution of power peacefully, and the rule of law to the principles of equality, but this option is entrenched, in particular, to represent the will of the people in free periodic elections, to bring rulers and replace them in accordance with the democratic game, to secure the rights of ‘minorities’ (cultural groups), to respect human rights and promote freedoms. Moreover, adopting the principle of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, control and accountability, and the principle of equality and non-discrimination, may help to overcome the current and future obstructions to the democratic system, despite some of its disadvantages, because democracy is in a state of progression, it is evolving, albeit slowly, and the growth may take a few years to bear fruit. The experiences of long-standing democracy are proof of this, especially Britain, France and others.

VII Our democratic spring: The old, the dying and the unborn

If the fall of totalitarian rule and authoritarianism has begun, especially in Eastern Europe and many Latin American, Asian and African countries, then the winds of change and wave of democratization, however, broke at the shores of the Mediterranean in its first phase (the early 1990s) and then stumbled into a rare historic opportunity for peaceful change in the Arab world, after the wave of the so-called Arab Spring (the early 2010s), because of the weakness and fragility of the alternatives presented in the Arab opposition and its unwillingness to take responsibility and delay the programme of change and democratic reform, where the opportunity was missed the again and the price was high.

Democracy is a critical necessity, not an intellectual luxury, but that does not mean changing the direction of the State from one bank to another would be easy or just for the sake of desire; it needs historical conditions and requirements through a long-term accumulation, without forgetting the positions of influential big powers and the policies of the United States, in addition to the regional overlaps and the religious–sectarian–ethnic wave that struck the region, fanaticism, extremism, violence and terrorism, whose virus still appears in many different forms and names from ‘Al-Qaeda’ to ‘Islamic State/Daesh’ to ‘Jabhat al-Nusra’ to ‘Ahrar al-Sham’ and so on.

The fall of tyranny has begun, but the spring of democracy will not be resolved, nor will it be resolved spontaneously without the presence of project-carrying forces, promising an alternative that responds to people’s aspirations, not to mention favourable international, regional and internal conditions.

While the US administration has raised the issue of democratic transitions to dry up the epicentre of terrorism, especially after the terrorist attacks of 11 September, the course of events aborted these projects from the beginning, specifically characterized by the use of cruelty, the imposition of a siege on Iraq for nearly 13 years, and then occupation against ‘international legitimacy’, has left the door astray for acts of terrorism and violence that have pervaded Iraq and the region. Not everybody knows how to get out of it. If the ‘old is dying’, according to the Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci, ‘the new is not yet born’.

Democracy has remained in the Arab world at a range between prohibited and perspective, it has become closer to desecration, indignation, defamation or even fraud. Its advocates have become accused of filling the West or marching on it, with increased criticism of the institutions of civil society, especially their adherence to external agendas, political and financial, while the authoritarian ideological arsenal was overcrowded, to talk about the deferred, after solving the current matters, which remained the central issue, especially the security of the governor, where any other issue can be postponed, particularly in light of civil wars and conflicts, in addition to sectarian and ethnic strife, community violence and international terrorism.

Perhaps the most serious lack of democratic culture is not due to the desire to confiscate it; rather, it extends to severe shortcomings and sometimes hostility towards political, educational, societal, religious, sectarian and tribal practices as well as women’s inequality. This needs to be fully rethought to prioritize a path to democratic development.

Democracy has been postponed, at the expense of the so-called national cause, and we have reached unruly dictatorships; the national cause was sometimes bartered under the pretext of social transformations, and both democracy and development were lost.

Some regimes and forces raised slogans for allegedly confronting the enemy that knocked on the door, suppressed under the pretext that on the pretext that everything is for the battle and we have to postpone the democratic question, but after decades and decades, Palestine is completely lost and fragmented by many Arab countries, and so the state is eroding, militias are spreading and sectarian and ethnic conflicts are intensifying and so we lost both: national and democratic.

Democratic transformation is a set of options and practical mechanisms. It requires the promotion of a pluralistic democratic culture, the promotion of freedoms, the empowerment of women, the reform of educational and religious curricula, through laws, institutions and practices, based on the rule of law, renouncing violence and terrorism, and promoting a spirit of tolerance and respect for human rights!

Perhaps this needs the accumulation and objective development from all parts of society and criticism through public opinion, the media and an active role from civil society institutions!!

VIII When politics disdains thought

After the talk of democracy transcended the constants of the nation and its priorities in the national trend and the practice of distorted bourgeoisie according to the Marxist tendency, and move away from God’s law, according to the Islamic trend, indeed, the radical, totalitarian revolutionary movement that disdained it yesterday became one of its strongest advocates. It seemed to foresee what happened decades later. Many of the parties and forces that advocate democracy today and govern many democratic principles in their programmes lack the same in their internal lives and in their relations with others. It is due to objective and subjective reasons.

The term ‘revolutionary party’ spread when Lenin struggled with Plekhanov, Martov and Rosa Luxemburg. Lenin was inclined to build a ‘revolutionary party’, a centralized revolutionary paramilitary organization with a steel discipline deduced by Martov, which spoke of a mass or stream of less stringent specifications; Martov remained a stigma attached to all those who demanded democracy or flexibility within the revolutionary party and wanted to minimize the rigor and centralization.

The ‘revolutionary movement’ in the construction of the party and the revolutionary organization was based on Lenin’s book What To Do? Its strict rules and strict standards served as the intellectual background of the internal systems of the Communist parties, especially in their Stalinist editions, but later became a constitution of the nationalist and Islamic parties. Thus, the experiences of origin and gender were transformed in open and secret (ruling and non-ruling) experiences, according to the Stalinist recipe for bureaucracy, tyranny and absence of democracy, both on the public level and on the level of internal life and in many instances the role of the individual was humiliated, at the same time, the leader, the hero, the wise, the philosopher, the writer, and the secretary-general were exalted.

If ‘revolutionary parties’ have raised the slogans of democracy as needed, especially when they are in opposition or outside power and some have used foreign powers against its country sometimes in order to get rid of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, these parties contributed to modularization, whether they were communist, nationalist or Islamic parties, sometimes called the ‘Revolutionary Democracy’, another is called the ‘People’s Democracy’, a third is titled ‘Social Democracy’ and a fourth calls itself the ‘Union of the Workers of the People’, which address the ‘Shura’ and ‘People of the Solution and Contract’.

The ‘Islamic option’ speaks of the necessities of ‘confronting the enemies and the Great Satan’. Thus, all the forces washed their hands of them when access to power or in the internal practice, often in the relationship with the other, especially when difference of opinion rises.

Much of what has been said on ‘central democracy’ and the foundations of the ‘Leninist organization’ of the revolutionary party needs to be reviewed and reconsidered. Many of them suffer from an inability to adapt to life, so it needs a critique of reality and the will to seek to change, after the experience reached a dead end and collapsed in the wind, no longer saying ‘do and then discuss’, good for the spirit of the times, for free and independent thinking, for the information age, for the scientific-technical revolution and for the communications revolution, and the idea of the minority submitting to the majority is no longer acceptable, in particular, minorities have rights that are safeguarded, including the right to freedom of expression.

Perhaps some European parties offer the minority the right to speak and express their intellectual and political views, which has been repeatedly defeated by the majority; moreover, the ‘majority’ as a leadership prints, disseminates and circulates its views throughout the party, and the press organizes dialogue and debate. The resort to banishment, separation and defamation has often become a legacy of the past.

The Revolutionary Party, including the Communist parties, was unable to accommodate the Marxist idea that the future of the party as a ‘vanguard’ would be subject to its transformation into a ‘mass bloc’. Every stream starts off wide and is not limited to a single layer, as it will eventually narrow. Although Lenin called it the 9% dictatorship against the 1%, the latter being the ‘majority’ democracy, against the deposed ‘minority’ in an attempt to give the dictatorship of the proletariat and the mass bloc a democratic character against the ‘minority’.

Marx’s idea for the party, that is, 19th-century Marxism is not the same as the Marxism of Lenin, Stalin, and later Arab Communist parties, where the concept of the party was transformed into one opinion and one leader, and that vision is entirely different from that of nationalist, Baathist and Islamic parties, which imitated socialist experiences, albeit more backward in the circumstances of the third world, because politics is a higher embodiment of culture and thought, which is one of the chronic problems that has contributed to the separation between daily and immediate and between strategic and long-term, the politician is a man of thought and research, not a preacher.