He followed his empathic “no,” with this explanation: “I support Khomeini because he has become a rallying figure in the movement against the Shah. I do not care about Islam”. Pointing towards the open window in our shared office, he said, “I can throw the Koran out of this window any time.” Habib went on: “After 38 years of the Shah’s dictatorship, as a nation, we have reached the depth of depravity; we cannot go down further; once the Shah is kicked out, we can only go up; if Khomeini misbehaves; we will throw him out too; if we can get rid of the Shah, we can get rid of him too”.
Iran did not go the way Habib and his fellow intellectuals had imagined; but then Nepal has not gone the way the ordinary folks who surrounded Kathmandu and the Nepali intellectuals who rallied to depose King Gyanendra had hoped; nor did things go well in many of the former British colonies in Africa and Asia where thousands of common peoples had fought for democracy and freedom. Something does not seem to be in sync between what revolutionaries demand – freedom and democracy- and what revolutions deliver. Given this history, how realistic is the optimism of freedom and democracy of the revelers in Tahrir Square? What does the future hold for Egypt? A review of the history of freedom struggles in developing countries may however provide some clues.
In the last seventy years, a number of nations in Asia and Africa that have rid themselves of their colonial masters and have, through revolutions, attempted to replace the subsequent homegrown dictatorship with democracy. The results of these massive efforts have not been encouraging, certainly not in the short term. Contemporary Nepal; contemporary Iran; Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe; Kenya since Jomo Kenyatta ; Ghana since Kwame Nkrumah; Pakistan’s cycle of democracy and military dictatorships; Burma’s enduring dictatorship after a short flirtation with postcolonial democracy; and numerous communist dictatorships provide some examples of the state of nations in various stages of democratic development or in stagnation under a new dictatorship after one or more cycles of mass revolutions. A number of old communist dictatorships have now been replaced by new functioning democracy as, after a few democracy-dictatorship cycles, have some of the old British colonies in Africa.
Thus, history suggests that it takes cycles of persistent dictatorships with interludes of chaotic democracy to lastingly replace authoritarian regimes with stable democracies. India and South Africa, despite their very different demography, ethnicity, culture and history, are the only two major nations who have defied this cycle.
India’s transition to democracy was led by leaders who were steeped in moral, ethical and democratic values. Nehru was a well known idealist and despite all the odds against his leadership, he never wavered from his commitment to an open society and democratic government. He was able to carry the people with him despite the unprecedented havoc created by the partition of India because of the moral capital he commanded. India is now a thriving democracy with increasing international acclaim as a rising economic power.
Neighboring Pakistan, which became independent at the same time, has been ruled under military dictatorship a number of times since its independence and is in absolute shambles. Similarly, South Africa is a vibrant democracy and neighboring Zimbabwe, the envy of the whole of Africa at the time of its independence from the British, is in a mess. South Africa had the advantage of course of being led in its transition by Nelson Mandela, an idealist and, like Nehru, firmly committed to a multiracial, free democracy. As the first president of post-apartheid South Africa, Mandela did not give into enormous pressures even from his party to avenge the Afrikaners. Without someone like Mandela, post-apartheid South Africa could have erupted into enduring violence and repression, like its neighbor to the north. Mandela resigned after his first term in office although if he had wished, he could have manipulated the constitution to continue for a second term. Since he left office, there have been two peaceful elections in South Africa. Once again Mandela’s moral authority helped him make difficult decisions and carry the people with him.
The transition from long term dictatorship to democracy is always complex and difficult. The leader of the transition has to manage a myriad of variables, the most difficult of which is the confusion created by the sudden burst of freedom and the high expectations of liberated peoples. The historical and cultural uniqueness of every country notwithstanding, it seems, a successful transformation of a nation from dictatorship to democracy is possible if the transition is led by a leader who, on the strength of his moral authority, is able to carry his people through difficult times. Leaders like Jhalanath Khanal and Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who have no qualms about secretly signing power-sharing deals on the back of their own people, let alone the nation, are bereft of such authority and nothing, except more chaos and conflict, can be expected from them. Egypt’s future rests on the integrity and commitment of the post-Mubarak leadership that emerges out of Tahrir Square. Let us wish the Egyptians luck - the luck that Habib and I, Iranians and Nepalis, have not had so far.
naresh1@shaw.ca
Related story
Egypt hold funeral for former president Mubarak
