A Journey into Testing Democracy

The question of democracy, both in theory and practice, will remain the question of questions and a constant source of controversy at every stage of politics and its repercussions around the world. Democracy, despite all that it has offered and continues to offer, remains the subject of a question that is occasionally questioned, provoking both questions and answers.

Some say that democracy, as it has reached its current state, is no longer suitable to be a source of people's choice and satisfaction as a regulatory mechanism for politics and political society, given the results it has led to in some societies, including the rise of the extreme right and its attempt to make democracy a mere bridge to destroy the accumulated values of political modernity for humanity, such as pluralism, human rights, and dignity.

Others see democracy as a mechanism for producing and concentrating power, influence, and wealth in the hands of bourgeois elites, as is the case with American democracy, for example, behind which conflicts rage between the world's financial centers and the lobbies of wealth and trade. This has made it a mere tool for circulating influence and wealth among these centers of influence, wealthy families, and the elites of obscene wealth, as is the case with Trump and Musk's democracy today.

Just as the poor have their fears, the bourgeoisie also has their fears of democracy, as previously raised by the historian of French democracy, Pierre Ronse Vallon, who pointed out early on the fears of the French bourgeoisie since the first half of the nineteenth century, which strongly opposed granting the right to vote and participate to all, fearing that parliament would be filled with the poor, who would be voted for by the poor, who constitute the majority in any society. This is on the assumption that there is a direct relationship between poverty and populism, which I believe may not be true, as Europe today is the richest, but it is also the country of the loudest populism.

Moreover, there are current questions about the extent of the West's belief in democracy in the first place, given its immoral stance on what is happening in the Third World, its clear involvement in supporting totalitarian and coup-plotting regimes, and its constant efforts to thwart any democratic experiment in the Third World.

This casts doubt on and undermines the credibility of the West, and shows that it truly believes only in its own democracy, and that it is the democracy of the Western interior, as an elegant decoration that conceals its colonial barbarism and tyranny outside its geographical borders.

These concerns are leading to profound and genuine discussions among most of the scientific, academic, political, and cultural elites engaged with the issues of their societies. These discussions revolve around the dilemma facing democracy, its future, and the threats it faces today, particularly from the West itself, before the East, the original home of democracy according to John Keane, the most prominent philosopher of democracy and author of "A Brief History of Democracy" and "The Life and Death of Democracy."

Concerns are growing today in light of the alarming decline in the vast expanses of freedom. It has become clear that democracy is under siege, even in the West itself, which for decades has presented itself as the protector and faithful guardian of democracy.

However, what we are witnessing today in the West completely contradicts this. Over the past decade, with the rise of the democratic Arab Spring, we have seen how the democratic West sided with the counter-revolutions, contributed to the collapse of the democratic Arab Spring revolutions, and stood against them from the very beginning.

Not only that, but the current war on Gaza and the destruction and genocide the city and its people have suffered have exposed the contradictory, authoritarian face of the West. The West has stood firmly against those who oppose this war, throwing them into prison, expelling them from their universities and jobs, and practicing all kinds of repression against anyone who objected to the Israeli war on Gaza.

Returning to our topic, the renewed debate over the dilemma of democracy, over the past three months I have attended and participated in several international workshops, conferences, and seminars, spanning from Africa to Europe and Asia, and bringing together diverse Arab and Western elites with a scientific and academic interest in the democratic question.

I have noticed how puzzled everyone is by the questions posed about democracy, whether it has indeed reached a dead end, and where the shortcomings lie if not, in addition to wondering about the possible alternatives to the democratic option at this puzzling moment in world history, amid the great rise of populism.

Indeed, numerous discussions have taken place that, in turn, reflect the prevailing state of real confusion, not only because of the lack of knowledge or theory about democracy and its solutions, but also because of the diminishing space for rationality and democratic awareness, and the dominance of triviality and populism in many of today's democratic experiences.

In addition to the counter-action that has also begun to emerge, as is the case in some African countries that have witnessed several coups, the justification for reforming what has been corrupted by the democratic game in these societies is evident. Many, many questions remain unanswered.

Among these questions that have begun to emerge is: What is the relationship between democracy and development? Is it an inverse or a direct relationship? This is in light of the emergence of the Chinese model, which has become a puzzling question for many regarding this experience, which was able to achieve a significant degree of development under the rule of a single party and a single leader. This experience calls for further study and research into the democratic experience of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.

Today, democracy, in its Western liberal form, may be facing a real challenge related to the extent to which liberal philosophy has failed. However, there are societies that have not yet experienced democracy, have not had the opportunity to experience it or achieve even a small amount of it. So how can they form a vision of this democracy?

This is the case in most countries of the Arab and Islamic world, which possess some roots in a democratic philosophy, or what is called the Shura of the People of Solution and Contract, which some have begun to consider a suitable option for the Arab cultural context. This calls for a comprehensive discussion of the mechanisms of this seed, which has not yet been worked on, and has remained mere scattered fragments that have not been built upon or developed to possess greater explanatory power for the content of political philosophy in Islam.

In general, democracy, like all human political ideas, are experimental and experiential ideas, not rigid, sacred templates that are not subject to discussion or change.

This is one of the ideas that today's societies may need to reconsider from the perspective of alternatives and different cultural contexts, and how to reproduce democratic models according to each cultural context. Each context produces its own democracy, which may lead to the claim that the Chinese Communist Party's democracy is a democracy that suits the Chinese cultural context, for example, or that the democracy of the Guardianship of the Jurist in Iran is what suits them, and so on. This may require each cultural context to produce its own democratic experience.

*Quoted from Al Jazeera Net